Christopher Yarber v. Home-Owners Insurance Company
357197
| Mich. Ct. App. | Apr 21, 2022Background
- Yarber alleges an unknown driver struck the driver’s side of his mother’s car; he felt immediate shoulder, left-side, and lower-back pain and sought PT and pain management care; MRI showed L4–L5 spine findings.
- Yarber did not call police or EMS at the scene; he reported the crash to Detroit police and obtained a report the next day.
- He sued the unknown driver (negligence), sought unpaid no-fault PIP benefits, and asserted an uninsured-motorist (UM) claim against Home-Owners Insurance.
- Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing Yarber failed to prove a threshold ‘‘serious impairment of body function’’ under MCL 500.3135 because his impairment was not objectively manifested or medically attributed to the crash.
- The trial court granted summary disposition and dismissed all claims with prejudice; Yarber’s later-submitted photos and repair estimate (on reconsideration) came too late to create a genuine issue.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: Yarber produced no medical opinion linking his injuries to the accident, so the objective-manifestation prong of the statutory test failed and dismissal of UM and PIP claims was proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was a factual dispute about the nature/extent of injuries that precluded the court from deciding the threshold issue as a matter of law | Yarber: medical records, deposition, and affidavit create a factual dispute about injury extent | Home-Owners: no dispute that Yarber had back/shoulder pain, but those facts do not meet the statutory threshold | Court: No material factual dispute about the nature/extent that would bar deciding threshold as a matter of law; defendant did not dispute existence of pain, only threshold legal issue |
| Whether Yarber met the three-prong statutory test (MCL 500.3135(5)) for a "serious impairment of body function" (objective manifestation requirement) | Yarber: MRI, provider notes, and treatment show objective injury and functional impact | Home-Owners: records lack a medical opinion attributing the injuries to the accident; objective manifestation requires medical evidence linking impairment to incident | Court: Failed objective-manifestation prong—no medical opinion establishing a physical basis attributable to the crash—so threshold not met |
| Whether dismissal of PIP and remaining claims was improper because defendant did not specifically move to dismiss PIP | Yarber: dismissal of PIP was not specifically litigated; trial court erred in dismissing claims beyond UM | Home-Owners: lack of threshold injury defeats both UM and PIP; court may reach correct result even if for different reason | Court: Affirmed dismissal of PIP; failure to show objectively manifested impairment (and lack of medical attribution) is fatal to PIP as well; court may affirm for any correct reason and may act sua sponte under applicable rules |
| Standard of review / procedural rule for reviewing summary-disposition materials | Yarber: (implicit) factual submissions should be considered in opposition to motion | Home-Owners: (implicit) court properly considered summary-judgment record | Court: Reviewed under MCR 2.116(C)(10) because trial court relied on materials outside pleadings; summary disposition reviewed de novo |
Key Cases Cited
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010) (establishes three-prong test and objective-manifestation requirement for "serious impairment of body function")
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (2003) (summary disposition standard; judgment as a matter of law when no genuine issue of material fact)
- Allison v. AEW Capital Mgt., LLP, 481 Mich 419 (2008) (definition of genuine issue of material fact; reasonable minds could differ standard)
- Cuddington v. United Health Servs., Inc., 298 Mich App 264 (2012) (review under MCR 2.116(C)(10) when court considers materials outside the pleadings)
- Gleason v. Michigan Dep’t of Transportation, 256 Mich App 1 (2003) (appellate court may affirm for right result even if trial court gave wrong reason)
- Al-Maliki v. LaGrant, 286 Mich App 483 (2009) (court may grant summary disposition sua sponte under MCR 2.116(I)(1))