Carmella Rose Miller v. Brandon Nicholas Lee Cooper ( 2010 )


Menu:
  • Order                                                                       Michigan Supreme Court
    Lansing, Michigan
    October 26, 2010                                                                        Marilyn Kelly,
    Chief Justice
    140711                                                                           Michael F. Cavanagh
    Maura D. Corrigan
    Robert P. Young, Jr.
    Stephen J. Markman
    Diane M. Hathaway
    CARMELLA ROSE MILLER,                                                            Alton Thomas Davis,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,                                                                     Justices
    v                                                      SC: 140711
    COA: 289114
    Mecosta CC: 07-018017-NI
    BRANDON NICHOLAS LEE COOPER,
    NICK W. BONGARD, and MICHIGAN
    MILLERS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    _________________________________________/
    On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 9, 2010
    judgment of the Court of Appeals is 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 Mecosta Circuit Court, and we REMAND this case to the trial court for
    reconsideration in light of McCormick v Carrier (Docket No. 136738), 487 Mich ___
    (July 31, 2010).
    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
    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.
    2
    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: 140711

Filed Date: 10/26/2010

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014