United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 76-72089; Unpublished
Judge Ralph B. Guy, Jr.
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
On an oral Opinion from the bench which has been transcribed, Judge Ralph Guy ruled that no-fault first party insurance contracts are not contracts involving mental concern and solicitude. As such, a simple breach of the contract does not entitle a plaintiff to recover so-called mental anguish damages assuming that Michigan law ultimately permits mental anguish damages for simple breaches of contracts involving mental concern and solicitude.
The Court noted, however, that its ruling on the unavailability of mental anguish damages did not automatically exclude recovery of "exemplary damages" for breaches of first party no-fault contracts. If exemplary damages are to be recovered, however, the plaintiff would have the burden of proving "bad faith" on the part of the insurance company. That is, in Judge Guy's view, a far cry from merely proving a simple breach of contract as the sole condition for recovering mental anguish damages. Regardless of the distinction, the plaintiff’s complaint in this case did not seek exemplary damages so the issue was not squarely presented to the Court.
Judge Guy suggested that when the Michigan Supreme Court ultimately deals with the question in the case of Kewin v Massachusetts Mutual, the Court should address the distinction between mental anguish damages and exemplary damages and determine under what conditions either should be recoverable.
