Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 185007; Unpublished
Judges Taylor, Markey, and Holowka; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a judgment of no cause for action in favor of the defendant insurance company on plaintiffs claim for personal injury protection benefits arising from a 1991 motor vehicle accident in which she struck a deer and claimed to continue to suffer from reflex sympathetic dystrophy syndrome and aggravation of a pre-existing dental condition.
The defendant insurance company, after paying plaintiffs no-fault benefits, denied further coverage, asserting that plaintiff had recovered from her accident and any continuing need for benefits was the result of a subsequent 1992 automobile accident.
In affirming the trial court's denial of plaintiff s motion for a new trial, the Court of Appeals held that it was for the jury to decide what weight should be accorded to the experts for plaintiff and defendant regarding the cause and nature of plaintiff s continuing injury. The Court of Appeals further denied plaintiffs claim on appeal that improper remarks by the trial court had denied her a fair trial. The court noted that many remarks were outside the presence of the jury, and the other remarks, when read in context, did not show undue influence of the jury.
The court further found no error in the trial court's ruling limiting the scope of plaintiff’s cross-examination of the defendant's claims adjuster by prohibiting inquiry into events that occurred after defendant had denied coverage. Finally, the Court of Appeals upheld an award of attorney fees pursuant to the mediation sanctions rule. The Court of Appeals held that it was not necessary for the trial court to have conducted an evidentiary hearing, so long as the trial court utilized a reasonable analysis and considered the proper factors. The trial court was therefore affirmed.
