Court Opinion

ID: 9670407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:19:57.913781+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.881648
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent.
The fact situation presented here is not distinguishable from that in Michigan Mutual Ins Co v *42Home Mutual Ins Co, 108 Mich App 274; 310 NW2d 362 (1981). Here, as in Michigan Mutual, a no-fault insurer paid personal protection insurance benefits and then subsequently became aware of a second contract of insurance with a higher priority. On these facts this Court held that the plaintiff insurer was essentially bringing a subrogation action subject to the one-year limitation period. MCL 500.3145(1); MSA 24.13145(1).
As the author of the prior opinion, I am not persuaded that the reasoning is no longer viable. I would affirm.