Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 96310; Unpublished
Judges Wahls, Maher, and Kallman; 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)]
Aggravation of Preexisting Conditions [§3105(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of plaintiff s motion for partial summary disposition in a claim for personal injury protection benefits, and reaffirmed earlier holdings that no-fault benefits are available under §3105 in cases of aggravation of a pre-existing condition. See, Mollitor (Item No. 811) and McKim (Item No. 847).
Plaintiff’s claim arose out of a pedestrian-car accident in which plaintiff, a man of 87 years of age, sustained apparent aggravation or acceleration of a pre-existing condition of senile dementia. Although plaintiff was experiencing considerable forgetfulness before the accident, he was able to live by himself with occasional assistance. After the accident, he required constant supervision and assistance. Defendant insurer's doctor conducted an examination, and concluded that the accident had contributed to plaintiff’s disability. The doctor was of the opinion that plaintiff, however, could not have expected to live unsupervised for more than another 6 to 12 months even without the accident.
Nearly one year after the accident, defendant insurance company cut off benefits. Plaintiff commenced suit, and after the deposition of the insurance company's doctor, plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on the liability issue. From the trial court's denial of this motion, plaintiff appeals.
The Court of Appeals noted that there was no dispute as to defendant's liability for benefits at the time of the accident. However, defendant did dispute whether plaintiff’s continuing disability was related to the accident. On this issue, the Court of Appeals held that there was no factual support for the defendant's position. The insurance company's own doctor acknowledged that he could not separate the extent to which the accident had brought about the plaintiff’s current condition as distinguished from his previous senile dementia.
In a strongly worded opinion, the panel stated that it was "dismayed that the defendant insurer would cease plaintiff’s PIP benefits" based upon the medical evidence of the insurance company's doctor. The court noted that the basic goal of the personal injury provisions of the no-fault insurance system is to provide assured, adequate and prompt benefits to individuals injured in automobile accidents. . . .To that end, the act was passed in anticipation that it would reduce excessive and frivolous litigation." The trial court order denying summary judgment was reversed with an order that the court enter an order of partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
