Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 196428; Published
Judges Holbrook, Jr., White, and Danhof;___________ ; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 228 Mich App 470; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Bystander Claims [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam published Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of an automobile accident was an independent cause of action and not derivative of the claim of the person who was struck as a pedestrian by an automobile. Based upon this ruling, the court held that the claim of the person who allegedly sustained the emotional distress was subject to separate insurance limits for residual liability coverage.
The case involved a claim of a 6-year old girl who witnessed her brother being struck by an automobile insured by plaintiff. The next friend appointed for the 6-year old asserted a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the driver of the automobile who was allegedly at fault in the accident. The driver was covered under a policy issued by the plaintiff insurer that had liability coverage limits of $100,000 per person, $300,000 per occurrence. The policy further provided that the $ 100,000 per person was the maximum amount to be paid for bodily injuries sustained by one person in one occurrence and included "all claims for derivative damages allowed by law." The insurance company had settled the claim of the brother for $95,759 and argued that $4,241 was all the coverage that was left available for the claim of the sister. The insurer filed this declaratory relief action seeking a ruling from the court to this effect.
The Court of Appeals initially noted that the policy of the language was clear that the “per person" limits included only the claims of others that were derivative upon an injured person's claim. Here, the plaintiff insurer argued that the bystander's claim was derivative to her brother's negligence claim. However, the cases cited by the insurance company involved claims by family members for loss of consortium, society and companionship which are derivative in nature, because such are contingent upon the injured person's recovery of damages. In contrast, the Court of Appeals found that a claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress "may be maintained as a separate, independent cause of action and is not dependent upon actual injury to, or recovery by, another person." Since the bystander's claim was not derivative, separate coverage limits were available under defendant's policy for that claim for bystander injuries. Finally, in footnote 2, the court stated that it was not expressing any opinion as to whether the bystander claim was subject to the no-fault tort threshold requirements of §3135.
In this per curiam published Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress arising out of an automobile accident was an independent cause of action and not derivative of the claim of the person who was struck as a pedestrian by an automobile. Based upon this ruling, the court held that the claim of the person who allegedly sustained the emotional distress was subject to separate insurance limits for residual liability coverage.
The case involved a claim of a 6-year old girl who witnessed her brother being struck by an automobile insured by plaintiff. The next friend appointed for the 6-year old asserted a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress against the driver of the automobile who was allegedly at fault in the accident. The driver was covered under a policy issued by the plaintiff insurer that had liability coverage limits of $100,000 per person, $300,000 per occurrence. The policy further provided that the $ 100,000 per person was the maximum amount to be paid for bodily injuries sustained by one person in one occurrence and included "all claims for derivative damages allowed by law." The insurance company had settled the claim of the brother for $95,759 and argued that $4,241 was all the coverage that was left available for the claim of the sister. The insurer filed this declaratory relief action seeking a ruling from the court to this effect.
The Court of Appeals initially noted that the policy of the language was clear that the “per person" limits included only the claims of others that were derivative upon an injured person's claim. Here, the plaintiff insurer argued that the bystander's claim was derivative to her brother's negligence claim. However, the cases cited by the insurance company involved claims by family members for loss of consortium, society and companionship which are derivative in nature, because such are contingent upon the injured person's recovery of damages. In contrast, the Court of Appeals found that a claim for negligent or intentional infliction of emotional distress "may be maintained as a separate, independent cause of action and is not dependent upon actual injury to, or recovery by, another person." Since the bystander's claim was not derivative, separate coverage limits were available under defendant's policy for that claim for bystander injuries. Finally, in footnote 2, the court stated that it was not expressing any opinion as to whether the bystander claim was subject to the no-fault tort threshold requirements of §3135.
