Court Opinion

ID: 9582010
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 22:21:25.148495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:37:23.729096
License: Public Domain

Gage, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the lead opinion’s analysis and conclusion that a judgment enforcing a mediation award does not satisfy the dramshop act’s prerequisites for indemnification. MCL 436.22; MSA 18.993.
I respectfully dissent from the lead opinion’s conclusion that Hoover Corners, Inc v Conklin, 230 Mich App 567; 584 NW2d 385 (1998), requires that we remand the instant case to permit Verna’s Tavern the opportunity to demonstrate its liability and establish its right to indemnification. I endorse the majority’s expressed view that “a claim for indemnification under MCL 436.22(7); MSA 18.993(7) cannot survive a settlement,” ante at 593, and thus, like the majority, I fail to comprehend the necessity or nature of a proceeding on remand. Unlike the majority, however, I do not view Hoover Corners’ penultimate sentence reflecting the panel’s choice of procedural disposition as essential or necessarily involved in determining the legal issues the Hoover Corners parties raised. People v Kevorkian, 205 Mich App 180, 190, n 6; 517 NW2d 293 (1994). Accordingly, I do not believe Hoover Corners demands the unnecessary remand.
I would affirm.