Court Opinion

ID: 9524050
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 02:49:35.188053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:08:48.630189
License: Public Domain

Mallett, J.
(dissenting). Although I agree with the majority’s presentation of the facts and the issue in these cases, I find it necessary to dissent. Little more than one year ago, this Court, in Citizens Ins Co v Federated Mut Ins Co, 448 Mich 225; 531 NW2d 138 (1995), refused to reverse the Court of Appeals decision in State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co v Snappy Car Rental, Inc, 196 Mich App 143; 492 NW2d 500 (1992). Just last year, we unanimously1 stated:
Our refusal to sanction Federated’s attempt to circumscribe the coverage required by the no-fault act, does not compel us to overrule the Court of Appeals decision in State Farm [supra], as suggested by the dissenting panelist in Citizens, supra. Snappy is factually distinguishable from the instant cases. [448 Mich 233.]
*42Because Snappy Car Rental involved the same issue presented in these cases, I think it only wise and prudent to adhere to our decision in Citizens. The factual distinction made by this Court in Citizens remains valid. I therefore disagree with the position adopted today by the majority and would affirm the decisions of the Court of Appeals.

 The Citizens opinion was signed by six justices. Justice Weaver did not participate.