Opinion
No. 139101.
October 26, 2010.
Court of Appeals No. 284016.
Summary Disposition.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we vacate in part the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Muskegon Circuit Court and remand this case to the Muskegon Circuit Court for reconsideration of the defendants' motion for summary disposition regarding whether plaintiff James Plaggemeyer sustained a serious impairment of body function in light of McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich. 180 (2010). In all other respects, leave to appeal is denied, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should be reviewed by this Court. We do not retain jurisdiction.
I concur in the order remanding for reconsideration under McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich. 180 (2010), because the majority opinion in McCormick altered the criteria for determining whether an injured plaintiff meets the serious impairment threshold in MCL 500.3135(7). But I reiterate my disagreement with the McCormick majority's analysis for the reasons expressed in Justice MARKMAN'S dissent in that case, which I joined. I continue to conclude that the McCormick majority misinterpreted MCL 500.3135(7), thus encouraging litigation that is expressly prohibited by the motor vehicle no-fault insurance act and upsetting the Legislature's clear intent to provide Michigan citizens with timely, automatic benefits for injuries sustained in auto accidents while avoiding costly, unnecessary litigation.
Although I recognize that this Court's decision in McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich. 180 (2010), now controls when a person may recover in tort for noneconomic loss under the no-fault act, I continue to adhere to the position stated in Justice MARKMAN'S dissenting opinion in that case, which I joined.