Court Opinion

ID: 9733999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 17:22:28.677909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:45:13.181177
License: Public Domain

Gehl, J.
(dissenting in part). The parties agree and the court holds that no liability on the part of Aetna to the plaintiff can be traced to the contract between Aetna and Lea. It is clear from the opinion of the majority that if there is such liability, it was created by the filing of the SR-21, which filing must, under the circumstances, be held to have been made by mistake, and certainly with no intention on the part of Aetna .to assume a responsibility which had not existed. It is not claimed by the plaintiff nor by the majority of the court thapplaintiffs changed their position in reliance upon the presence in the office of the commissioner of motor vehicles of the SR-21, or that Aetna is estopped to deny liability.
I am unable to agree that when we are unable to find that the parties have voluntarily and mutually agreed upon a contract, we create one for them.
~ I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Steinle joins in this dissent.