Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #285011; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Talbot, and Shapiro; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Kreiner Era - 1996-2010) [3135(7)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Venue Determination
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s Order denying plaintiff Farm Bureau’s motion for a declaratory judgment that the Michigan no-fault law be applied in a negligence action filed in Indiana between Michigan residents who were involved in a motor vehicle accident in Indiana.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals first noted that Farm Bureau would prefer that Michigan law apply to the Indiana lawsuit because Indiana does not have a serious impairment threshold similar to the threshold under MCL 500.3135(7). However, it concluded that despite Farm Bureau’s preference, there was “nothing legally incorrect” about the injured party filing the lawsuit where the accident occurred. Under Indiana law, the court continued, the preferred venue for actions involving injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident is the county in which the accident occurred. Moreover, the court stated, the injured party was legally entitled to sue in the state where the accident occurred. Furthermore, the witnesses might be located in Indiana, the accident report was from Indiana, the traffic laws in effect were Indiana laws, and the location could have been more convenient for the injured party. These reasons, the court noted, are not outweighed by Farm Bureau’s desire to save money by having the Michigan statutory threshold apply. In this regard, the court stated:
“Plaintiff prefers that Michigan law apply to this case because Indiana does not have a threshold that an injured person must satisfy in order to bring suit, as is required by MCL 500.3135(7). However, Black filed suit in Indiana. Under Indiana court rules, preferred venue is in ‘[t]he county where the accident or collision occurred, if the complaint includes a claim for injuries relating to the operation of a motor vehicle.’. . . Thus, there is nothing legally incorrect about Black having filed suit there. . . .
Black had every right to sue in the state where the accident occurred, and she may have had reasons other than the forum-shopping of which plaintiff accuses her. There may be witnesses nearby, the police report was from Indiana, the applicable traffic laws were those of Indiana, and the location may be more convenient for her. These reasons are clearly not outweighed by plaintiff’s attempt to save money by keeping the suit in Michigan where Black might not meet the statutory threshold. Permitting the suit to stay in Indiana where Indiana law might perhaps be applied is not a ‘hardship’ to plaintiff.”
