Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #293835; Published
Judges Murphy, Meter, and Shapiro; unanimous: by Judge Meter
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
The Michigan Supreme Court GRANTED Leave to Appeal on 10/19/11; Link to Order
On November 21, 2012, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded the circuit court for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendant; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
PIP Benefits for Bystander Psychological Issues [3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion written by Judge Meter, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling that plaintiff was entitled to no-fault PIP benefits for psychological injuries she sustained as a result of witnessing the death of her son in a motorcycle / motor vehicle accident. The Court found that the trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff’s psychological injuries arose out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle and therefore she was legally entitled to recover no-fault PIP benefits. The plaintiff in this case was driving her motor vehicle behind a motorcycle that was being driven by her son. Plaintiff saw a motor vehicle make a wide turn into her son’s path and witnessed her son’s motorcycle and the motor vehicle violently collide. Plaintiff drove over to where her son had landed after the collision and went to be with him.
Plaintiff’s son was severely injured and was pronounced dead approximately 30 minutes later. After the accident, plaintiff was treated by two psychologists who diagnosed her as suffering from “post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, single episode, severe without psychotic feature.” The psychologists submitted an affidavit stating that the post-traumatic stress disorder was caused by plaintiff’s witnessing the collision which killed her son. As a result, plaintiff continued to have nightmares and recurrent thoughts about the accident with marked diminished interest and ability to function, restricted affect, insomnia, depression, extreme fatigue, nausea, sleep loss, loss of appetite, and severe headaches on a daily basis.
In concluding that plaintiff was entitled to no-fault PIP benefits for her psychological injuries, the Court referenced two earlier decisions in Williams v Citizens Mut Ins Co, 94 Mich App 762 (1980) [RB #267] and Keller v Citizens Ins Co of America, 199 Mich App 714 (1993) [RB #1589]. In both of those cases, the claims for compensable psychological injuries were rejected, primarily on the basis that neither plaintiff had witnessed the injury to their loved one. In the case at bar, the plaintiff actually witnessed the collision and was immediately present with her son moments after the collision. In distinguishing Williams and Keller and in holding the plaintiff was legally entitled to benefits under §3105(1) of the statute, the Court stated:
“Here, the trial court correctly recognized that plaintiff’s viewing of the collision is a critical distinction between this case and Williams … . In Williams, the plaintiff’s daughter suffered fatal injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The plaintiff thereafter received psychiatric care. The plaintiff did not see the accident or view her daughter’s body within minutes of its occurrence. This Court concluded that the plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault benefits … The Court expressly declined to reach ‘the issue of whether plaintiff would have a right to recovery under the no-fault act had she witnessed the accident or become aware of it at a time fairly contemporaneous with it.’
The facts in Keller … are more similar to the present case than are the facts in Williams. Plaintiff Margaret Keller was in her home when she heard the screech of tires and immediately went outside. She saw her son’s body lying in the street where he had been struck by an automobile. Her no-fault insurer denied first-party PIP benefits for her psychiatric treatment. … We find that evidence from plaintiff’s psychologists distinguishes this case from Keller. … [A]ccording to plaintiff’s psychologists, plaintiff’s injuries were the result of her witnessing the fatal collision. … Accordingly, it is evident that plaintiff’s depression, too, is inextricably tied to the witnessing of the accident and to the post-traumatic stress disorder. … Defendant contends that, at a minimum, a claimant must be ‘actually involved’ in an accident to recover no-fault benefits. … To the extent defendant is contending that the injuries must arise from the claimant’s own operation, use, ownership, or maintenance of a motor vehicle, case law does not support the argument. … To the extent that defendant is claiming that there must be physical contact between the claimant and the motor vehicle, case law also does not support the argument. … Therefore, plaintiff’s injuries need not result from physical contact with a motor vehicle to fall within the scope of MCL 500.3105(1). … [We] find that the trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff’s injuries were injuries arising out of the use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. Affirmed.”
