KROCHMAL v. PAUL REVERE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Summary Dispositions.

SC: 126997.

Pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals because we do not agree that Perez v. Aetna Life Ins Co, 150 F3d 550 (CA 6, 1998), to the extent that the Court of Appeals relied on that decision, states the relevant Michigan common-law legal standard, and we affirm the Wayne Circuit Court's judgment of an award of disability benefits. Reported below: 262 Mich App 115.

CAVANAGH, J. (concurring).

I concur with the order vacating the judgment of the Court of Appeals because it will also disavow the proposition that the phrase "satisfactory written proof of loss" is all that is needed to vest an insurer with complete discretionary authority.

KELLY, J. (concurring).

I concur with Justice CAVANAGH's statement. I agree with the vacation of the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the additional reason that, in vacating, we make clear that the determination of an insurance company is reviewed by a court using a de novo standard.