Court Opinion

ID: 9741227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:51:57.240889+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:22.947656
License: Public Domain

G. C. Steeh, III, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the remand for allowance of the contribution claim for the reasons stated in the majority opinion.
However, I disagree with the majority’s abrogation of the five-percent cap in MCL 257.710e(6); MSA 9.2410(5)(6). The majority clearly misreads the statute in limiting its application to actions brought by an injured party only. The statutory limitation on recovery should not be ignored in a contribution action that is strictly derivative of the first. Not only is such a limited application of the statute nonsensical, it is patently unfair. It is also unsupported by the clear, unambiguous language of the statute itself, where no such limited application is stated.
The trial court undertook a detailed, well-reasoned analysis of this statute. That opinion correctly applied the cap to the derivative contribution claim. I would *554affirm the decision of the trial court with regard to this issue.