Thomson v. State Farm Insurance

Griffin, RJ.

(dissenting). I agree that the order of the lower court must be reversed. However, I would reverse with prejudice because the undisputed facts clearly establish that plaintiffs engaged in “wilful noncompliance” with a condition precedent to maintaining an action on the insurance contract.

It appears that the majority is trying to engage in rule making for which it has no authority. People v Sallee, 63 Mich App 146, 149; 234 NW2d 180 (1975). See also Const 1963, art 3, § 8. The majority hopes that “henceforth” its legal conclusions will be applied to prospective cases. Nevertheless,…