Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #303536; Published
Judges Borrello, Beckering, and Gleicher; unanimous; per curiam;
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 298 Mich App 769 (2012); Link to Opinion:
The Michigan Supreme Court DENIED Leave To Appeal on May29, 2013; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Noneconomic Loss Liability of Uninsured Tortfeasors [§3135(1) (3)]
Liability for Intentionally Caused Harm [§3135(3)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition regarding plaintiff’s claim for non-economic damages and held that even though plaintiff was operating an uninsured vehicle that she owned at the time of the accident, her claim for non-economic loss damage was not barred if she could prove her allegations that the defendant intentionally caused her injury and was thus liable under the intentional injury provisions of § 3135(3)(a).
In the typical case, plaintiff’s claim for non-economic damages would be barred under the provisions of § 3135(2)(c), which precludes recovery “in favor of a party who was operating his or her own vehicle at the time the injury occurred and did not have an effect for that vehicle the security required by § 3101 at the time the injury occurred.” However, subsection (2) of § 3135 begins with the phrase, “for a cause of action for damages pursuant to subsection (1).” Subsection (1) preserves tort liability for non-economic loss only where the injured person has suffered a threshold injury. However, § 3135(3)(a) begins with the phrase “notwithstanding any other provision of law” and provides that tort liability is not abolished with respect to “intentionally caused harm to persons or property.” Therefore, the issue was whether the plaintiff’s status as an uninsured motor vehicle owner barred her claim for non-economic loss where the claim was being made under the intentionally injured provisions of § 3135(3)(a).
With respect to this issue, the Court of Appeals held that the victims of intentionally-caused injury who assert claims for non-economic loss under § 3135(3)(a) are not barred from recovering damages for non-economic loss by the uninsured motorist provisions set forth in § 3135(2)(c). In so holding, the Court of Appeals stated:
“A plain reading of the language in MCL 500.3135(2) indicates that the uninsured motorist restriction is limited to claims arising under MCL 500.3135(1), i.e. the threshold exception. In particular, the first sentence of subsection (2) states, "[f]or a cause of action for damages pursuant to subsection (1) ... all of the following apply." This language clearly limits the scope of subsection (2) to threshold claims arising under subsection (1). . . . Moreover, the language in § 3135(3) indicates that the uninsured motorist restriction in § 3135(2)(c) is inapplicable in instances where a plaintiff files a claim to recover damages arising from intentionally-caused harm. Specifically, subsection (3) provides: "[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, tort liability ... is abolished except as to ... [intentionally caused harm] . . . . Accordingly, pursuant to the explicit language of subsection (3), irrespective of or in spite of any other provision of law, including § 3135(2)(c) and other provisions of the no-fault act, tort liability remains in effect for intentionally-caused harm. The no-fault act's grant of immunity does not extend to tort liability arising from a defendant’s intentional conduct. . . . Further, while § 3135(3)(b) provides that tort liability is abolished except as to "damages for noneconomic loss as provided and limited in subsections (1) and (2)," (emphasis added), that paragraph does not limit recovery of non-economic damages that arise from intentionally-caused harm. As noted, § 3135(3)(a) strips a defendant of tort immunity for intentionally-caused harm "notwithstanding any other provision of law.”
Pursuant to the forgoing, the Court reversed and remanded the case for further proceedings as the trial court clearly erred when it ruled that plaintiff’s non-economic loss claim was barred under § 3135(2)(c).
