Julie Garcia v. Dale Andrew Doyle ( 2010 )

Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
October 26, 2010 Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice
Michael F. Cavanagh
Maura D. Corrigan
138019 & (49)(50) Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
Diane M. Hathaway
JULIE GARCIA, Alton Thomas Davis,
Plaintiff-Appellant, Justices
v SC: 138019
COA: 281233
Saginaw CC: 06-061949-NI
ESTATE OF DALE ANDREW DOYLE, by
JACK A. DOYLE, Personal Representative,
Defendant-Appellee.
_________________________________________/
On order of the Court, the motions for substitution of party are GRANTED. By
order of August 20, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the November 25, 2008
judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in
McCormick v Carrier (Docket No. 136738). 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 judgment of the Court
of Appeals, and we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals 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
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