Opinion
CASE NO. 99-74061.
May 25, 2000.
OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST PLAINTIFF CORY THOMAS
Before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment against Plaintiff Cory Thomas (Docket Entry #7). The Court has determined that oral argument is not necessary. Therefore, pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(e)(2), the motion will be decided on the briefs. Upon consideration of the motion, the submissions of the parties, and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS summary judgment for Defendants against Plaintiff Cory Thomas.
I. BACKGROUND
This is an automobile negligence case arising out of an accident that occurred on June 3, 1996 in Highland Park, Michigan. On that date, Plaintiff Cory Thomas was operating a 1978 Chevrolet van ("the Vehicle"). His wife, Plaintiff Evelyn Taylor Thomas, was a passenger in the front seat. As he drove south on California Street, a vehicle operated by Defendant Kenneth E. Hill, Sr., and owned by Defendant MWP Industrial, made a lefthand turn off of Oakland Street onto California and struck the side of the Thomas vehicle causing injuries to both Plaintiffs.
At the time of the accident, the Vehicle was uninsured. Ms. Taylor Thomas had taken out a policy of no-fault insurance through Titan Insurance Company covering the period April 12, 1996 to October 12, 1996. However, this policy was canceled three weeks before the accident on May 13, 1996 as the insurance premiums were not paid. ( See Pollitt Aff. ¶ 4.)
On May 21, 1999, Plaintiffs filed an action in Wayne County Circuit Court for damages arising out of the accident. Based on diversity of citizenship jurisdiction, Defendants timely removed the action to this court on August 16, 1999. Currently before the Court is Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff Cory Thomas.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The Court may properly grant a motion for summary judgment if "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); see also Blankenship v. Parke Care Centers, 123 F.3d 868, 871-72 (6th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1110, (1998). The Court is directed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party and determine "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251-52 (1986). The moving party initially has the burden to advise the Court of the basis for the summary judgment motion and of demonstrating that the record shows no material issue of fact exists. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1982). However, "the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of the non-moving party is not sufficient; a genuine issue for trial is presented when there is sufficient "evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the [non-moving party]." Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
III. ANALYSIS
Defendants argue that at the time of the accident, Cory Thomas was the owner of the Vehicle and that it was uninsured. Defendants rely on Cory Thomas' answer to Interrogatory 16 which asked him if he was the owner of the Vehicle at the time of the accident and whether it was insured. Mr. Thomas replied:
Yes, partial owner; It was my understanding that vehicle [sic] was insured; however when the no-fault claim for this accident [sic]. I found out that the vehicle was not insured. It was my understanding that we were insured with Titan.
(Cory Thomas Answer to Interrog. #16; Def. Ex. A.) Defendants assert that, pursuant to MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 500.3135(2)(c), Cory Thomas' claim for non-economic damages is barred. Defendants also maintain that, based on his answer to Interrogatory 36, Cory Thomas does not have any wage loss or other economic damages as a result of the accident. Accordingly, Defendants argue that the Court should dismiss Cory Thomas' entire claim.
MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 500.3135(2)(c) provides: [Noneconomic losses caused by a person's ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle] shall not be assessed in favor of a party who was operating his or her own vehicle at the time the injury occurred and did not have in effect for that motor vehicle the security required by section 3101 at the time the injury occurred.
Plaintiff Cory Thomas responds that he was not the owner of the Vehicle, and that he has amended his answer to Interrogatory 16 accordingly. However, Mr. Thomas' amended answer states:
I was the owner of the motor vehicle involved in the accident at the time of the accident.
(Pl. Ex. 4) (emphasis added).
Nevertheless, even if Cory Thomas' amended answer actually denied ownership of the Vehicle, the evidence clearly shows otherwise. Defendants attached as Exhibit A to their supplemental brief in support of their motion for summary judgment the title history for the Vehicle. This history conclusively establishes that Cory Thomas and Evelyn Lagwen Taylor have jointly owned the Vehicle since May 8, 1996.
There are no questions of material fact that Cory Thomas was the owner of the uninsured Vehicle at the time of the accident, and that he does not have any wage loss or other economic damages as a result of the accident. Pursuant to MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN. § 500.3135(2)(c), the Court GRANTS Defendants summary judgment on Plaintiff Cory Thomas' claims.
SO ORDERED.