Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260339; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Smolenski, and Servitto; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Defaults and Default Judgments
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of no cause of action in favor of defendant, finding that plaintiff’s pre-existing degenerative arthritic condition was not aggravated by the motor vehicle accident.
The plaintiff in this case claimed the motor vehicle accident exacerbated his pre-existing arthritic condition. Plaintiff was unable to personally serve defendant and obtained an Order authorizing alternative service. Defendant failed to respond or otherwise appear and plaintiff obtained a default judgment against defendant for $50,000. Thereafter, plaintiff contacted defendant’s insurer and attempted to collect the default judgment. In response, defendant moved to set the default aside. The trial court granted the motion and the matter proceeded to trial, at which time a jury determined that plaintiff had not been injured and judgment was entered in defendant’s favor.
On appeal, plaintiff argues there was overwhelming evidence that his pre-existing arthritic condition was exacerbated in the motor vehicle accident. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that although plaintiff presented evidence of an injury, the evidence allowed the jury to conclude that plaintiff had a degenerative arthritic condition that was not aggravated by the accident. In so finding, the court noted that plaintiff had not reported an injury immediately after the accident. Additionally, x-rays and an MRI did not reveal trauma-related injury but did reveal degenerative changes. Moreover, plaintiff admitted he had back problems before the accident and also admitted he was able to engage in various activities shortly after the accident. Furthermore, defendant presented a videotape showing plaintiff engaging in various activities which could have caused the jury to question plaintiff’s credibility. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . although plaintiff presented evidence of an injury, viewed in a light most favorable to defendant, the evidence permitted the jury to conclude that plaintiff had a degenerative arthritic condition that was not aggravated by the accident. Evidence indicated that there was no observed or reported injury to plaintiff immediately after the accident. Additionally, x-rays and an MRI did not reveal any trauma-related injury, but did show degenerative changes. Plaintiff admitted in his deposition that he had back problems before the 2000 accident, and admitted that he was able to engage in various activities shortly after the accident. Also, defendant presented a videotape showing plaintiff engaged in various activities, which could have caused the jury to question the credibility of plaintiff’s testimony regarding whether his preexisting arthritic condition was actually aggravated by the 2000 accident.”
Plaintiff next argued that the trial court improperly set aside the default judgment. The Court of Appeals again disagreed, finding that because defendant’s affidavit of meritorious defense indicated that a review of plaintiff’s medical records showed that plaintiff’s condition did not meet the no-fault threshold, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it set aside the default. Furthermore, the court noted that the trial court’s decision was influenced by the fact that although plaintiff did not serve the insurance company, he sought to have the insurance company satisfy the judgment. Under this circumstance, the Court of Appeals concluded that the trial court properly determined there was good cause to set aside the default judgment. In this regard, the court explained:
“Although we agree that plaintiff was not required to serve defendant’s insurer, plaintiff subsequently attempted to satisfy the judgment through defendant’s insurer without having made any effort to contact or notify the insurer before the judgment was obtained. Additionally, plaintiff obtained alternate service on defendant at an address at which, according to information received by plaintiff, defendant may no longer be residing, yet plaintiff made no attempt to contact or notify defendant through his known insurer. Under these circumstances, the trial court reasonably could have determined that there was good cause to justify setting aside the default judgment.”
