Court Opinion

ID: 9741798
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:02:19.735734+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:26.450094
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(concurring specially). I concur in the result and with the thrust but not the breadth of the analysis of Justice Levin’s able and scholarly opinion. Hapner 1 and Khalaf suggest to me *158that we would do well in this fast-moving field of state long-arm jurisdiction to primarily stake out our lines on a case-by-case basis. This means that the facts of each case are of paramount importance.
Khalaf deals with the duty arising in regard to an insurance contract consummated in Illinois between an Illinois machine servicing corporation and defendant, an Illinois insurance agent. The plaintiffs Khalaf, Michigan residents, claim a third-party-beneficiary interest in this contract on account of an accident in Michigan, which would have been covered by the insurance except for defendant’s negligent performance of his duty in Illinois. Defendant insurance agent was aware that the machine servicing corporation had transacted business in the adjoining state of Wisconsin. However, there was nothing on the record to show that the machine servicing corporation had transacted, or was transacting, business in Michigan, or in any other state, nor was there any record evidence that defendant insurance agent was conducting any business in Michigan or in any other state.
In this condition of the record, it is difficult to find that there was either a "stream of commerce”, or a "foreseeable” or a "purposeful availment” relationship between defendant insurance agent and the unfortunate accident in Michigan. As a consequence, the Michigan long-arm statute has no application.
On the other hand, it is not difficult to envision that the change of one or two significant facts would change this conclusion. For example, it would have been important if the record had shown that the Illinois insurance agent could reasonably have foreseen that his client was about to *159conduct operations in Michigan. It would have been equally important if it were on record that either the client or the insurance agent was doing a nationwide business, without necessarily specifying Michigan.
Kavanagh, C.J., concurred with Williams, J.
Blair Moody, Jr., J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 Hapner v Rolf Brauchli, Inc, post, 404 Mich 160; 273 NW2d 822 (1978).