Court Opinion

ID: 9687403
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:27:22.80205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:26.968047
License: Public Domain

T. G. Kavanagh, J.
(dissenting). The defendants moved for summary judgment under GOB 1963, 117. The grounds asserted were:
“1. Because the complaint filed by the plaintiff fails to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted by this court.
“2. Because the pleadings heretofore filed by the plaintiff, together with the affidavit of Samuel A. Garzia hereto attached, disclose that there is no genuine dispute between the parties over which this court has jurisdiction and that, therefore, the Travelers Indemnity Company is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
“3. That this matter involves an uninsured motorist claim against a policy of insurance issued by the Travelers Indemnity Company, which policy of insurance states that such claims shall be decided by arbitration, in the event of dispute, and that plaintiff did file a petition with the American Arbitration Association for a decision on said uninsured motorist claim and that the arbitrator duly appointed by the American Arbitration Association has rendered a final decision in this matter, and that under said circumstances, plaintiff is not entitled to any further relief nor has the circuit court any jurisdiction over the subject matter of said uninsured motorist claim.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus the first ground challenged the sufficiency of plaintiff’s complaint. The second and third grounds challenged the court’s jurisdiction.
These last two grounds would have been proper only on a motion brought under GCB 1963, 116.
*607The court’s order was based on the theory that “there was no genuine issue of any material fact,” which is a proper ground under GCR 1963, 117, but. was not even alleged by defendant.
Viewing the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, against whom the motion was made, I am satisfied that it stated a cause of action. Failure to state cause of action being the only proper ground under Rule 117 which was raised to support the motion, to enter the order on it was error.
Viewing the second and third grounds for the purpose of considering the motion as though made under Rule 116 will not serve to support accelerated judgment either.
The jurisdictional question raised on these grounds can be answered only by the determination of the alleged accord. This can be determined only by proof of the fact at a trial.
Here plaintiff is entitled to her day in court to abide her proofs or failure thereof.
I would reverse and remand for trial.