Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 65509; Published
Judges _________; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 411 Mich 502; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Loss of Consortium Claims [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals (Item No. 315) and held that the Michigan No-Fault Act (§3135) does not abolish the common-law action for loss of consortium. The court stated that the tort abrogation language of the Statute is ambiguous as to whether it restricts tort recovery for noneconomic losses only to a physically injured person. Because the Act abolishes a common-law right, it must be strictly construed. As such, it "will not be extended by implication to abrogate established rules of common law." The court noted that there is nothing in the language of the Act that specifically abolishes consortium actions. Furthermore, such actions do not create a new case, nor do they "contribute significantly to the problem the act was intended to alleviate. Thus, an action for loss of consortium continues to be a viable cause of action, provided the physically injured spouse sustained a threshold injury.
The court declined to address the other issue decided by the Court of Appeals in this case, namely, whether it was necessary for a plaintiff to prove a continuing serious impairment of body function in order to recover future damages for pain and suffering. The court stated that it was "not persuaded that the question presented should not be reviewed by this court." It is understood that an application for rehearing with respect to this undecided issue has been filed.
