Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


REBECCA BUSH, Plaintiff-Appellant and CrossAppellee, v FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant-Appellee and CrossAppellant. and FARM BUREAU MUTUAL COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Defendant. INSURANCE

UNPUBLISHED March 30, 2006

No. 257757 Allegan Circuit Court LC No. 03-034712-NI

Before: Murphy, P.J., and White and Meter, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting summary disposition in favor of Farm Bureau General Insurance Company (hereinafter defendant). Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident caused by an underinsured motorist, with whom she settled for the policy limits in a separate action pursuant to case evaluation, and plaintiff was covered by insurance issued by defendant that included underinsured motorist protection in the amount of $50,000. The trial court found, as a matter of law, that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function under the criteria set forth in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004). Plaintiff challenges that ruling on appeal, and defendant cross appeals, arguing, in part, that the trial court erred in ruling that plaintiff's cause of action was not barred by the limitations period contained in the insurance contract. We affirm, holding that the trial court did not err in concluding that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff first argues on appeal that because the trial court stated that it had no choice but to grant defendant's motion, it failed to exercise its discretion. However, when read in context,

-1-


the trial court's ruling reflects an adherence to stare decisis, not a failure to exercise discretion. The trial court referred several times to the binding precedent set forth in Kreiner, supra, and stated that the injuries in this case simply did not arrive at the threshold as defined in that case. Therefore, plaintiff's argument is without merit, and the trial court did not fail to exercise its discretion. Plaintiff next asserts that a factual dispute existed as to the nature and extent of her injuries, and the trial court therefore erroneously granted defendant's motion for summary disposition as a matter of law. We disagree. Defendant did not dispute plaintiff's injuries below or on appeal, but assumed for the purposes of argument that the nature and extent of plaintiff's injuries were as she described. Therefore, there was no factual dispute, and the trial court was required to determine whether plaintiff had suffered a serious impairment of body function as a matter of law, making plaintiff's argument meritless. MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(i). Furthermore, the trial court appropriately granted summary disposition on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to demonstrate a serious impairment of body function because her general ability to live her normal life had not been affected, as defined in Kreiner. A serious impairment of body function is defined as "an objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person's general ability to lead his or her normal life." MCL

Download REBECCA BUSH V FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS CO.pdf

Michigan Law