Court Opinion

ID: 9504205
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:55:52.911235+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:54.574308
License: Public Domain

WEAVER, J.
(concurring). I concur in the result and reasoning of the majority opinion with one exception. I disagree with one of the majority’s criticisms in dicta of a Court of Appeals decision, Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co v Riddering.1
*59I disagree with the majority’s statement that Riddering “erred in resorting to [the principle of contra proferentem] without first concluding that the term ‘operate’ in the [insurance] contract was ambiguous.” Ante at 56. A review of Riddering reveals that that Court of Appeals panel in that case did conclude that the contract terms at issue were susceptible to different interpretations; thus, it properly construed the contract against the drafter. See Klapp v United Ins Group Agency, Inc, 468 Mich 459, 481-487; 663 NW2d 447 (2003) (Weaver, J., dissenting), and Raska v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Michigan, 412 Mich 355, 362; 314 NW2d 440 (1982).

 172 Mich App 696; 432 NW2d 404 (1988).