Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 47885, 48909; Published
Judges T. M. Burns, Beasley, and Deneweth; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 105 Mich App 556; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Vehicles and Trailers, Including Motorcycles [§3123(1)(a)]
Objective Manifestation Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
Important Body Function Element of Serious Impairment (Cassidy Era – 1983-1986) [§3135(1)]
General Ability / Normal Life Element of Serious Impairment (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
Determining Serious Impairment of Body Function as a Matter of Law (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In an Opinion of major significance by Judge Deneweth, the Court of Appeals ruled that a plaintiff who sustained a fractured clavicle (collar bone) which resulted in arm immobilization followed by a noneventful recovery, had sustained a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law. The Court cited medical treatise authority to the effect that the clavicle was a major bone in the shoulder girdle structure which was responsible for arm movement and upper body mobility. A fracture of such a bone interferes considerably with upper body function (even though not usually permanently) and as such constitutes a threshold injury. It so holding, the Court of Appeals specifically rejected the notion that an injury must have long lasting effects or a lengthy period of convalescence in order to be classified as a serious impairment of body function. In this regard, the Court noted:
"The theory that the severity of an injury must be largely determined by its required period of convalescence is consistent with neither logic nor law. An injury such as whiplash can last for weeks yet have no real effect on the functioning of one's body processes. By way of contrast, a pronounced cerebral concussion may result in temporary loss of consciousness which could well be a serious impairment of body function. It is clear that longevity of recovery is but one element to be used in ascertaining whether a given injury amounts to a serious impairment of body function... Any effort to impose time requirements in the area of serious impairment of body function amounts to a judicial engrafting of an additional requirement onto a plainly worded statute. This we cannot do."
With regard to the definition of serious impairment of body function, the Court commented that, "The statute itself provides utterly no guidance on the parameters of the term." The Court was critical that this vagueness and ambiguity with regard to the definition of this phrase may approach a violation of due process. The Court invited the legislature and/or the Supreme Court to provide the necessary "definition of parameters."
In another part of the holding, the Court ruled that a motorcycle is classified as a "motor vehicle" for purposes of the property damage exclusions contained in §3123 of the statute. Therefore, physical damage to a motorcycle caused in an automobile accident is not compensable with property protection insurance benefits. In addition the owner of the motorcycle has no tort cause of action against the automobile owner for the property damage to the motorcycle.
