RAMAN VOJNIKA V STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS RAMAN VOJNIKA, UNPUBLISHED June 22, 2017 Plaintiff, v No. 331470 Macomb Circuit Court LC No. 2014-002726-NI STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee and PROTECTIVE INSURANCE & FINANCIAL SERVICES LLC and PROTECTIVE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, and NATIONAL INTERSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant. Before: RIORDAN, P.J., and RONAYNE KRAUSE and SWARTZLE, JJ. RONAYNE KRAUSE, J. (concurring) I concur in the majority’s reasoning and conclusion that plaintiff was an employee rather than an independent contractor, irrespective of plaintiff’s expressed opinion to the contrary. A party is entitled to a verdict in their favor if the evidence supports that verdict, even if the party has expressed a contradictory opinion. Ortega v Lenderink, 382 Mich 218, 222-223; 169 NW2d 470 (1969). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that any disregard of the corporate form by Tenolli warrants piercing the corporate veil, because I do not perceive the requisite misuse beyond some commingling of identities. See Green v Ziegelman, 310 Mich App 436, 450-459; 873 NW2d 794 (2015). However, I concur in the majority’s analysis and conclusion that Tenolli, G&T, or an entity combining both could be considered “owners” of the truck under the -1- no-fault act, and as noted in footnote 3 of the majority opinion, the specific identity of plaintiff’s employer does not matter. I respectfully decline to concur in the remainder of the majority’s analysis, because I believe doing so is unnecessary to the resolution of this matter. /s/ Amy Ronayne Krause -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
