Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 78649; Published
Judges Hood, Hoibrook, Jr., and Kerwin; 2-1; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 148 Mich App 1; 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: Exclusions from Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals resolved a conflict between Caplan v DAIIE (Item No. 375) and Jones v DAIIE (Item No. 628), and held that a claimant seeking recovery of uninsured motorist benefits pursuant to her policy of insurance was not required to establish a threshold injury in order to recover damages for noneconomic loss. The court noted that in addition to the conflict between the Caplan and Jones decision, there was also apparently a conflict in the language of the two Supreme Court decisions in Bradley v Mid-Century Ins Co (Item No. 312) and Citizens v Tattle (Item No. 429). This panel of the Court of Appeals chose to rely upon the language contained in Citizens, which states, "The uninsured motorist is outside the basic no-fault system of allocating the costs of accidents and remains, therefore, subject to tort liability."
Judge Hoibrook dissented. He stated that, "Either interpretation has support," but chose to follow his opinion in Caplan v DAIIE.
