YAMADA v. NATURAL DISASTER CLAIMS COMMISSION

Per Curiam.

The petition for rehearing is denied without argument. The opinion of the court filed herein is limited to this case and the facts presented therein. The opinion does not govern other natural disaster claim cases involving facts different from those presented in this case.

We reaffirm the reversal of the judgment appealed from on the principal ground stated in the opinion, and not on the alternative ground relating to equitable estoppel. There may be situations in which the government may be equitably estopped, but, upon further consideration, we do not think that this case presents such a situation.

Chief Justice Richardson, who dissented from the majority and Judge Kawakami, who now joins the Chief Justice in his dissent, do not concur.

CONCURRING OPINION OF LEVINSON, J.

I concur except insofar as Justice Marumoto and Judge Vitousek would eliminate equitable estoppel as an alternative ground for the result in this case. In my opinion, Yamada v. Natural Disaster Claims Commission, 54 Haw. 621, 513 P.2d 1001 (1973) was correctly decided in its entirety.