Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 89372; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Weaver, and Roberts; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 161 Mich App 212; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision of an arbitration panel which denied plaintiff’s claim for non-economic loss for the reason that she failed to meet the threshold of serious impairment of body function.
A split arbitration panel concluded that the injuries must meet the serious impairment threshold, the circuit court refused to vacate the arbitration decision, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court. The Court of Appeals noted that there is presently a split of authority on the issue as to whether an injured party must satisfy the serious impairment threshold in a case where damages are claimed under uninsured motorist insurance coverage. See Caplan v DAIIE (Item No. 375), holding that the injuries must meet the threshold, and compare with Jones v DAIIE (Item No. 727) and Stephenson v Associated General (Item No. 889), holding that the injuries need not meet the threshold. See also, Auto Club v Hill (Item No. 1011), an unpublished per curiam opinion, in which another panel of the Court of Appeals held that the-threshold need not be met.
The Court of Appeals in this case held that it had power to set aside an arbitration only if the arbitrators through error in law had been led to a wrong conclusion. Given the split of authority, the Court felt that it could not make such a finding.
