Court Opinion

ID: 9575509
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:14:25.695023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:48:16.691238
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(concurring). Because this case presents facts unlikely to reoccur and has little jurisprudential significance, I believe leave was improvidently granted. I concur in the result of affirmance for the reasons expressed by the Court of Appeals, in particular:
At most, plaintiffs showed the existence of a conflict between the terms of the policy and the endorsement. When there is a conflict between the language of an endorsement and the form provisions of an insurance contract, the terms of the endorsement prevail. Peterson v Zurich Ins Co, 57 Mich App 385; 225 NW2d 776 (1975); Jones v Philip Atkins Construction Co, 143 Mich App 150; 371 NW2d 508 (1985). Thus, as a matter of law, New Hampshire did not "misrepresent” the inception time of its policy. [148 Mich App 724, 732; 384 NW2d 724 (1985).]