Court Opinion

ID: 9740229
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:30:32.004602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:17.041006
License: Public Domain

M. J. Kelly, J.
(dissenting). Contrary to the position taken by the majority, I believe we are presented here with precisely the type of exception contemplated by the Court in Stewart v Rudner, 349 Mich 459; 84 NW2d 816 (1957). Plaintiffs contract with Michigan Hospital Service, also known as Michigan Blue Cross, was not for the *470purpose of protecting a commercial investment; pecuniary aggrandizement is not anticipated by parties to a health insurance contract. The consideration for payments made under the policy is, rather, the peace of mind that derives from knowledge that one will receive necessary medical care without concern for ability to pay. The majority concludes that plaintiffs suffered only monetary disadvantage as a result of defendant’s breach and are therefore not entitled to damages for mental anguish. I cannot equate the mental disquietude plaintiffs herein experienced with the usual vexation and annoyance accompanying a breach of contract involving trade and commerce. Health preservation concerns, common to all, are far more fundamental. Plaintiffs’ contract with Michigan Blue Cross was designed to insure against the very anxiety they were forced to endure by defendant’s nonpayment.
Furthermore, there is ample legal support for plaintiffs’ claim of damages for mental anguish. This Court, in Kewin v Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins Co, 79 Mich App 639; 263 NW2d 258 (1977), lv gtd 402 Mich 940 (1978), noted that a variety of insurance contracts have been accepted as involving "mental concern and solicitude”:
"That phrase now encompasses health insurance (McCune v Grimaldi Buick [45 Mich App 472; 206 NW2d 742 (1973)]), fire and casualty insurance (Krajenke v Preferred Mutual Insurance Co [68 Mich App 211; 242 NW2d 70 (1976)]), professional malpractice insurance (Palmer v Pacific Indemnity Insurance [sic] Co [74 Mich App 259; 254 NW2d 52 (1977)]), and life insurance (Seaton v State Farm Life Insurance Co [75 Mich App 252; 254 NW2d 858 (1977)]). No Michigan court has considered whether disability insurance should be placed in the same classification. In Bolden v John Hancock Mutual Insurance Co [422 F Supp 28 (ED *471Mich, 1976)], a Federal district judge held that disability insurance did not qualify for the Stewart exception. However, that decision was made without the benefit of McCune, Krajenke, Palmer, and Seaton. Given the clear consensus of this Court established by those four decisions, we must reject Bolden, and hold that disability insurance contracts are also concerned with matters of mental concern and solicitude.” 79 Mich App at 649.
The Kewin Court made it clear that in the absence of plaintiff’s pleading deficiency, defendant’s failure to pay the claim under the disability insurance contract would have permitted recovery for mental anguish damages. The issue in Kewin was framed in terms of defendant’s "bad faith” failure to pay. The instant case raises a similar question regarding whether defendant acted in bad faith in persisting in refusal in the face of Mrs. Zimmerman’s physician’s correspondence with defendant emphasizing that plaintiff’s hospitalization was not simply for purposes of rest or convalescence, but was absolutely necessary to ensure the safe birth of the triplets.
I would affirm the lower court judgment awarding damages for mental anguish.