Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 295755;Unpublished
Judges Shapiro, Fitzgerald, and Borrello; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (McCormick Era: 2010 – present) [§3135(7)]
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era: 1996-2010) [§3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion regarding Plaintiff’s threshold claims for non-economic loss, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in Defendant’s favor on the issue of serious impairment and remanded for further proceedings, because while this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided the case of McCormick v Carrier, which overruled Kreiner v Fischer and “established new standards . . . for evaluating third-party claims under MCL 500.3135(1) and (7).”
The Plaintiff in the case was injured in an auto accident while riding as a passenger in a vehicle that was struck by Defendant, who failed to stop at an intersection. During the accident, “Plaintiff was thrown from the vehicle and suffered a T11-12 compression fracture and cervical strain.” The Defendant died in the accident, and this action was brought against the Defendant’s estate. In bringing suit, the Plaintiff alleged that he suffered “a serious impairment of body function under MCL 500.3135(1), (7),” and Defendant’s estate later moved for summary disposition on the issue of serious impairment. The trial court initially denied Defendant’s motion because discovery had not yet closed. However, Defendant filed a second motion for summary disposition on the threshold issue after discovery was completed, which the trial court then granted applying the Kreiner standard. This appeal followed.
In reviewing the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals noted that while this appeal was pending, “our Supreme Court released its decision in McCormick, which overruled Kreiner . . .[and] established new standards . . .for evaluating third-party claims under MCL 500.3135(1) and (7) that could not have been known to the trial court at the time of the order.” Therefore, the Court of Appeals “vacate[d] the trial court’s order granting Defendant’s motion for summary disposition and remand[ed] for further proceedings consistent with McCormick.”
