Court Opinion

ID: 9686086
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:26:30.314257+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:14.648067
License: Public Domain

O’Connell, J.
(concurring). I concur only in the result reached by the majority in the third section of its opinion. In light of this, I believe it is unnecessary to reach the issues addressed in sections four and five of that opinion.1

 But for the Supreme Court’s edict in Brucker v McKinlay Transport, Inc., 454 Mich 8, 19; 557 NW2d 536 (1997), I would strike the clauses that are contrary to the statutory arbitration act, MCL 600.5001 et seq.; MSA 27A.5001 et seq., and remand to the arbitrator for further proceedings, Brucker v McKinlay Transport, Inc, 212 Mich App 334, 344; 537 NW2d 474 (1995) (O’Connell, J., dissenting).