Title: American National Fire Ins. v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins.
Citation: 445 Mich. 91, 516 N.W.2d 52
Docket Number: 97596
State: Michigan
Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court
Date: May 4, 1994

445 Mich. 91 (1994)
516 N.W.2d 52
AMERICAN NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY
v.
FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Docket No. 97596.

Supreme Court of Michigan.
Decided May 4, 1994.
Sommers, Schwartz, Silver &amp; Schwartz, P.C. (by Leonard B. Schwartz and Patrick Burkett), for the plaintiff.
*92 Garan, Lucow, Miller, Seward, Cooper &amp; Becker, P.C. (by James L. Borin and Robert D. Goldstein), for the defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION. As observed by the Court of Appeals, this case was submitted to the trial court with an agreed-upon statement of facts. We restate here the Court of Appeals recitation of the facts:
The Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order, which granted the defendant's motion for summary disposition and which denied the plaintiff's cross motion for summary disposition. The case was ordered remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but not for all the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals. We agree with the plaintiff that the trial court appears to have refused to follow the parties' stipulation of facts. We remand the case to the Oakland Circuit Court for further proceedings consistent with that stipulation.
We further order that the opinion of the Court of Appeals shall have no precedential force or effect. See Bernthal v Aetna Casualty &amp; Surety Co, 444 Mich 1216 (1994).
CAVANAGH, C.J., and BRICKLEY, BOYLE, RILEY, GRIFFIN, and MALLETT, JJ., concurred.
LEVIN, J. (dissenting).
I would deny leave to appeal rather than purport to "affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals" with the flag that "the opinion of the Court of Appeals shall have no precedential force or effect. See Bernthal v Aetna *94 Casualty &amp; Surety Co, 444 Mich 1216 (1994)." Ante, p 93.
The Court does not indicate how the Court of Appeals might have erred in its analysis. Today's decision is similar to recent decisions in Bernthal, supra, and Ginther v Ovid-Elsie Area Schools, 444 Mich 1218 (1994), in which this Court denied leave to appeal with the flag that the reported opinions of the Court of Appeals in those cases shall have no precedential force or effect. I repeat what I said in a separate statement in Bernthal and in Ginther: