Court Opinion

ID: 9722770
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:49:42.66895+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:39.872044
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
{dissenting). This case, while in part factually distinguishable from Gamble v. American Asbestos Products Company (1968), 381 Mich 105, is subject to the same observations which I made in my opinion in that case (pp 112-115).
The issue of notice to which 1 adverted in Gamble is complicated in this case' by the “agreement” to protect the proceeds of the settlement. This case is all the more evidence of the need to review the effect of the notice provision in the statute and the method of application of the proceeds of an action against the negligent third party.
I agree with the result reached by the Court of Appeals.