Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 117255; Unpublished
Judges Maher, Gribbs, and Murphy; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Statute of Limitations [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations (MCL 600.5851 – 600.5856)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion dealing with a third party tort case, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of the defendant, based upon the three year statute of limitations contained in MCLA 600.5805(8).
The court rejected plaintiffs assertion that the statute of limitations did not commence until the day the DiFranco v Pickard, 427 Mich 32 (1986) case was decided. The court held that although DiFranco, supra, modified the legal standard for determining whether a "serious impairment" existed, the statute itself had not changed. Consequently, the three year statute of limitations continued to apply to plaintiff s claim. The court also declined to rule on the question of whether the date of manifestation of the serious impairment should control the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations, as was held in the cases Horan v Brown, 148 Mich App 464 (1986) (Item No. 903) and Mielke v Waterman, 145 Mich App 22 (1985) (Item No. 861). The court noted that the Supreme Court order denying leave in Gagliardi v Flack, 180 Mich App 62 (1989) (Item No. 1292) indicated that it was not persuaded that a conflict existed with the Horan, supra, and Mielke, supra, cases on the issue of whether the date of the serious impairment should control the commencement of the running of the statute of limitations.
In this case, the court held that plaintiff had failed to establish, by competent evidence, a factual question on the record before the trial court that the claim of serious injury manifested itself less than three years from the date that the complaint was filed. Accordingly, summary disposition was affirmed.
