Narrative Opinion Summary
In the matter involving Carmella Rose Miller, Alton Thomas Davis, Brandon Nicholas Lee Cooper, Nick W. Bongard, and Michigan Millers Mutual Insurance Company, the Michigan Supreme Court reviewed an application for leave to appeal a judgment from the Court of Appeals. The core legal issue revolved around the interpretation of the serious impairment threshold under MCL 500.3135(7) as revised by the precedent McCormick v. Carrier. The Supreme Court vacated the decisions of both the Court of Appeals and the Mecosta Circuit Court, remanding the case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of this new precedent. Justice Corrigan concurred, highlighting her concerns about the McCormick decision's potential to increase litigation, which she argued was contrary to the legislative intent of providing timely benefits. Justice Young also concurred, though he noted his support for a dissenting opinion in McCormick, recognizing the controlling nature of the precedent in no-fault claims. The case outcome dictated a reassessment of the plaintiff's claims under the modified legal framework established by McCormick.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of Precedent in Determining Serious Impairmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Michigan Supreme Court vacated previous judgments and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of the McCormick v. Carrier decision, which revised the criteria for assessing serious impairment under the no-fault act.
Reasoning: The Court vacates the judgments of both the Court of Appeals and the Mecosta Circuit Court, remanding the case to the trial court for reconsideration based on the precedent set in McCormick v. Carrier, which altered the criteria for determining whether an injured plaintiff meets the serious impairment threshold under MCL 500.3135(7).
Concurring Opinions Acknowledging Governing Precedentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Young concurred, recognizing McCormick as the controlling precedent for recovery claims under the no-fault act, despite his alignment with a dissenting opinion in that case.
Reasoning: Justice Young also concurs, acknowledging that McCormick now governs recovery claims under the no-fault act, while reiterating his support for Justice Markman's dissent in that case.
Judicial Disagreement with Statutory Interpretationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Justice Corrigan expressed her disagreement with the majority's interpretation in McCormick, indicating concerns about its potential to cause excessive litigation contrary to legislative intent.
Reasoning: Justice Corrigan concurs, emphasizing her disagreement with the McCormick majority's interpretation of the statute, suggesting it could lead to unnecessary litigation contrary to the Legislature's intent to provide timely benefits without excessive legal disputes.