Court Opinion

ID: 9572647
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:43:28.181156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:33:45.748883
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(dissenting). In light of the trial court’s finding on remand that any acts of bad faith by the insurer were not the cause of the excess judg*385ment against plaintiff Keeley, I cannot agree with the determination of the majority to adopt the rule stated in Justice Levin’s dissent from our original decision in this case, Frankenmuth Mutual Ins Co v Keeley, 433 Mich 525; 447 NW2d 691 (1989). The finding by the trial court removes any need for this Court to further consider the adoption of either the judgment rule described in our original decision or Justice Levin’s modified version thereof.
However, since the trial court’s finding with respect to the cause of the excess judgment against Keeley also removes the factual premise of our original opinion—i.e., that acts of bad faith by the defendant insurer caused the excess judgment—I agree that the opinion should not stand. I would therefore vacate the Frankenmuth opinion as effectively "moot” in light of the findings below. I would not retain jurisdiction.