Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #235022; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Cavanagh and Neff; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Trial Procedure Issues [3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion regarding a jury trial for recovery of uninsured motorist benefits, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not commit error in permitting plaintiff to cross-examine defendant’s claims adjuster on the issue of whether plaintiff suffered serious impairment of body function. The serious impairment threshold was the major issue at trial. Plaintiff offered a “parade of experts and first-hand testimony about the severity of his injuries,” which was unrebutted by any witnesses offered by defendant. Defendant’s claims adjuster reached the decision that plaintiff did not meet the threshold and accordingly denied uninsured motorist benefits. In ruling that plaintiff’s counsel was entitled to cross-examine defendant’s adjuster, the Court of Appeals stated, “Inquiry into the adjuster’s decision and reasoning, if not simply for properly presenting relevant background facts and giving the jury the full picture of events leading to the court case, is also relevant to the central issue of serious impairment of body function, in that the jury was entitled to hear about any evidence that might suggest that plaintiff did not have a serious impairment and the basis for that determination.”
The Court of Appeals also held that the trial court did not commit error in permitting the jury to learn the amount of the uninsured motorist policy limits. In so holding, the court stated, “Michigan courts traditionally interpret an insurance contracting by construing the contract in its entirety. . . . This would include the policy limits. . . . Without the contract there is no basis for the litigation. There was no abuse of discretion.”
