Court Opinion

ID: 9731205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 15:38:05.285044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:15.521738
License: Public Domain

Elliott, J.
(concurring). I concur and join in Judge Allen’s opinion. My remarks are on a subject that was not briefed or argued.
This appeal involves only a dispute between two insurance companies who disagree about whether the coverage of one is "excess” or "pro-rata”. The dispute delayed a determination by an arbitrator, finally made on August 30, 1971, that plaintiff sustained damage of $10,652.08 on December 10, 1966, when his daughter was killed by an uninsured motorist. American Fellowship appeals from a circuit court decision and confirmation of the award, requiring it to pay its limits, plus interest, instead of the one-half that it has claimed it owes. Travelers does not dispute that it owes $652.08 "excess” plus interest at the legal rate.
Although American Fellowship acknowledges liability for $5,325.04, and Travelers admits that it owes $652.08, plaintiff has not received even these amounts nearly eight years after the death of his daughter and fully three years after delayed liquidation of his claim. Interest on the award, át the legal rate of six percent per annum, will be a *402fraction of actual interest the plaintiff would pay on borrowed money.
Appeal should not be allowed in a case like this unless the plaintiff has been paid the damages determined by the tribunal below, subject to appellant’s recovery from the other insurer if successful on appeal.
An analogous situation occurs when a disabled workman is determined to be entitled to compensation but a dispute exists as to which of his employer’s compensation carriers is obliged to pay it.
These situations are the opposite of "inter-pleader” provided by GCR 1963, 210. I hope our Supreme Court will adopt a just rule that would govern cases of this nature.