Smart v. New Hampshire Insurance , 428 Mich. 236 ( 1987 )

Cavanagh, J.

(concurring). Because this case presents facts unlikely to reoccur and has little jurisprudential significance, I believe leave was improvidently granted. I concur in the result of affirmance for the reasons expressed by the Court of Appeals, in particular:

At most, plaintiffs showed the existence of a conflict between the terms of the policy and the endorsement. When there is a conflict between the language of an endorsement and the form provisions of an insurance contract, the terms of the endorsement prevail. Peterson v Zurich Ins Co, 57 Mich App 385; 225 NW2d 776 (1975); Jones v Philip Atkins Construction Co, 143 Mich App 150; 371 NW2d 508 (1985). Thus, as a matter of law, New Hampshire did not "misrepresent” the inception time of its policy. [148 Mich App 724, 732; 384 NW2d 724 (1985).]