Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262502; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Murphy, and Davis; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Casualty Insurance Policies – Minimum Coverages and Required Provisions
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided after the Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer [RB #2428], interpreting the statutory definition of serious body function, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant on plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss.
Plaintiff was injured while operating a motorcycle which was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Lehmann.
The Court of Appeals described plaintiff’s injuries based upon plaintiff’s response to the motion for summary disposition, in which he stated he suffered injuries “to both knees, an acromioclavicular dislocation of the left shoulder, and was suffering from traumatic chest-wall syndrome.”
However, the court noted that on the issue of serious impairment, plaintiff attached only his personal affidavit in support of the response to defendants’ motion for summary disposition. Although plaintiff referred to injury to the knees consisting of a torn meniscus and ACL laxity, which affected his participation snowboarding, mountain-biking, rollerblading, and also on his ability to perform his job duties, the Court of Appeals held that on the record before it, reversal was not warranted. Plaintiff had “simply failed to provide sufficient and proper documentary evidence showing that there exists a genuine issue of material fact in regard to the necessary showing that the impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life.” The court noted there was no “medical documentation even reflecting that the knee surgery had taken place, let alone medical documentation on the specifics of the surgery or showing that the nature of the injuries despite the surgery are such that plaintiff will have to endure a lifetime of pain, instability, and weakness.” Further, plaintiff’s own affidavit was insufficient in its failure to provide any insight or facts sufficiently explaining why plaintiff could not complete his studies or how the impairment affected his general ability to lead his normal life.
The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that because MCL 500.3009 requires a minimum of $20,000 of residual liability insurance coverage, and because a case evaluation panel under MCR 2.403 had valued his claim in the amount of $100,000, therefore, his claim must satisfy the serious impairment of body function threshold. The court noted that simply because one must be insured for the statutory minimum of $20,000, does not necessarily mean the serious impairment of body function threshold has been established if an injury is valued at $20,000 by a case evaluation panel. Further, the case evaluation amount relied upon by the plaintiff “has no meaning outside the context of MCR 2.403 which governs case evaluations.”
Finally, the court rejected plaintiff’s claim the Kreiner decision was wrongly decided. The court stated, “Even though we also have serious reservations about the ruling in Kreiner, our Supreme Court has spoken, and its decision represents binding precedent that must be followed.”
