(dissenting). Plaintiffs appeal from entry of judgment notwithstanding the verdict in favor of the defendant.
A review of the record indicates to this writer that the trial judge did not err in granting JNOV.
*577The relationship between Michigan Millers and plaintiffs’ employer Farm Bureau Services was clear. Michigan Millers provided property insurance and its safety inspections were directed at preventing fire and collaterally, as a result, the protection of workers upon the premises. The trial judge was within his authority in determining the issue of duty as a matter of law. Ray v Transamerica Ins Co, 46 Mich App 647; 208 NW2d 610 (1973).
The testimony of the defendant’s inspector was unequivocal. His inspections were designed solely to protect against Michigan Millers having to pay under the fire insurance policy it issued to Farm Bureau Services. The inspector had elsewhere conducted employee safety inspections, which were more extensive than those conducted in the Zil-waukee feed mill. The inspector’s testimony that he never saw the Bobcat which provided the ignition source for the explosion inside the mill was not contradicted.
Additionally, the testimony of Farm Bureau Services officials convinces me that Farm Bureau Services did not rely on Michigan Millers concerning employee safety. William Callum, for example, testified that Farm Bureau Services never accepted the inspector’s findings without doing its own independent investigation. There was a safety committee to which the Zilwaukee feed mill sent a representative.
As in Smith v Allendale Mutual Ins Co, 79 Mich App 351; 261 NW2d 561 (1977), I would affirm entry of JNOV for defendant fire insurance company. There was insufficient evidence presented at trial to create jury questions on the issue of whether defendant had voluntarily assumed a duty towards the feed mill employees. Evidence was undisputed that defendant exercised no con*578trol in the feed mill with regard to employee safety. Andrews v Insurance Company of North America, 60 Mich App 190; 230 NW2d 371 (1975), remanded, 394 Mich 464; 231 NW2d 645 (1975), Watson v Employers Ins Co of Wausau, 50 Mich App 597; 213 NW2d 765 (1973).
The plaintiffs presented no evidence that defendant had undertaken any obligation towards the feed mill employees. The threshhold element of a cause of action premised on 2 Restatement of Torts, 2d, § 324A was therefore not proven.
I respectfully dissent and vote to affirm.