Court Opinion

ID: 9676501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:25:51.310707+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:48.981964
License: Public Domain

SIMONETT, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I would answer the third question “no.” In other words, as the majority opinion also concludes, plaintiff has failed to show any cognizable subrogation injury. To show an injury, it may or may not be necessary, in my view, to resolve first the underlying claim in litigation; it is enough to say here there has been no injury, at least not yet.
I would decline to answer the first two questions which ask whether this state recognizes either intentional or negligent spo*440liation. On the pleadings and this record, it is an idle academic enterprise to discuss these purported causes of action. In other words, the first two certified questions ask essentially for advisory opinions.
The majority opinion tells the trial court on remand to grant defendants’ motions for summary judgment and judgment on the pleadings. I think we should leave to the trial judge what to do with the motions. The trial court might decide to dismiss the spoliation claims without prejudice, thereby leaving open the questions here presented for another day. Nothing I say here should be construed as recognition of a cause of action for spoliation, which is a subject which can be decided on another occasion if need be.
YETKA, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I join in the dissent of Justice Simonett.
COYNE, Justice
(dissenting in part).
I join in the dissent of Justice Simonett.