Wayne Cottrill v. Craig Kenneth Senter ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                    Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    October 26, 2010                                                                     Marilyn Kelly,
    Chief Justice
    139677                                                                        Michael F. Cavanagh
    Maura D. Corrigan
    Robert P. Young, Jr.
    Stephen J. Markman
    WAYNE COTTRILL, Individually and as                                            Diane M. Hathaway
    Next Friend of JEREMY COTTRILL, and                                           Alton Thomas Davis,
    SALLY COTTRILL,                                                                               Justices
    Plaintiffs,
    and
    SALLY COTTRILL as Next Friend of
    ANTHONY KELSEY,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    v                                                    SC: 139677
    COA: 285216
    Genesee CC: 06-084724-NI
    CRAIG KENNETH SENTER,
    Defendant-Appellee,
    and
    FENTON LANES INC.,
    Defendant.
    _________________________________________/
    By order of December 21, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the June 23,
    2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in
    McCormick v Carrier (Docket No. 136738). On order of the Court, the case having been
    decided on July 31, 2010, 487 Mich ___ (2010), the application is again considered and,
    pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE the
    judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Genesee Circuit Court, and we REMAND this
    case to the trial court for reconsideration in light of McCormick.
    CORRIGAN, J. (concurring).
    I concur in the order remanding for reconsideration under McCormick v Carrier,
    487 Mich ___ (2010), because the majority opinion in McCormick altered the criteria for
    determining whether an injured plaintiff meets the serious impairment threshold in MCL
    500.3135(7). But I reiterate my disagreement with the McCormick majority’s analysis
    2
    for the reasons expressed in Justice MARKMAN’s dissent in that case, which I joined. I
    continue to conclude that the McCormick majority misinterpreted MCL 500.3135(7), thus
    encouraging litigation that is expressly prohibited by the motor vehicle no-fault insurance
    act and upsetting the Legislature’s clear intent to provide Michigan citizens with timely,
    automatic benefits for injuries sustained in auto accidents while avoiding costly,
    unnecessary litigation.
    YOUNG, J. (concurring).
    Although I recognize that this Court’s decision in McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich
    ___ (2010), now controls when a person may recover in tort for non-economic loss under
    the no-fault act, I continue to adhere to the position stated in Justice MARKMAN’s
    dissenting opinion in that case, which I joined.
    I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
    foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
    October 26, 2010                    _________________________________________
    d1018                                                                 Clerk
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 139677

Filed Date: 10/26/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014