Court Opinion

ID: 9689541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:39:54.825792+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:50.137542
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). This writer concurs with my brother Judge Gillis in his ruling that the jury verdict is not res judicata of the insurer’s liability to its insured under the uninsured motorist provisions and his ruling that uninsured motorist coverages of the policy may be stacked. However, as to the second issue in which the majority rule that plaintiff can offset payments under the no-fault provisions against payments to the insured under the uninsured motorist provisions, this writer is constrained to disagree.
The majority cite the cases of American Fidelity
*312Fire Ins Co v Williams, 80 Mich App 125; 263 NW2d 311 (1977), lv gtd, 402 Mich 950s (1978), and Schigur v West Bend Mutual Ins Co, 80 Mich App 640; 264 NW2d 83 (1978), lv gtd, 402 Mich 950q (1978), in support of its position. After reading both of these cases, together with the dissenting opinions of my Brother Judge N. J. Kaufman, it appears that the dissents in the two cases properly consider and rule on this issue.
This writer, therefore, adopts the dissenting opinions of Judge N. J. Kaufman in each of these cited cases in ruling on this issue. This writer believes that only through this interpretation of the no-fault contracts can an insured be made whole, thereby satisfying the purpose of the no-fault statute.