Court Opinion

ID: 9517245
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:11:10.470852+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:01.326517
License: Public Domain

FITZGERALD, PJ.
(concurring). In my concurring opinion in Cameron v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 263 Mich App 95, 103-104; 687 NW2d 354 (2004), aff'd in part and vacated in part, 476 Mich 55 (2006), I concurred with the majority’s conclusion that, since the effective date of the 1993 amendment of MCL 600.5851(1), the plain language of the general saving provision does not apply to actions commenced under the no-fault act. However, I stated:
I do not believe that the Legislature intended this result and, therefore, I urge the Legislature to amend § 5851(1). Minors or insane persons are under the same disability whether their actions are under the RJA or the no-fault act. “[T]he defendant in one case is generally in no greater need than the defendant in the other of protection from delay in commencement of the action.” See Lambert v Calhoun, 394 *557Mich 179, 190-191; 229 NW2d 332 (1975). [Cameron, supra at 104 (Fitzgerald EJ., concurring).]
I continue to adhere to this position.