Gray v. Chrostowski
298 Mich. App. 769
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff sued for noneconomic damages arising from a 2009 road-rage incident on US-23 in Michigan.
- Plaintiff’s vehicle was uninsured at the time of the accident.
- Defendant allegedly intentionally collided with plaintiff’s vehicle, causing a crash and damages.
- Two witnesses testified to defendant’s aggressive driving and possible intoxication; an eyewitness described the collision.
- The trial court granted partial summary disposition under MCL 500.3135(2)(c) due to lack of insurance.
- Appellant court reversed, holding uninsured-motorist restriction does not bar intentional-harm claims and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether §3135(2)(c) bars uninsured motorists from noneconomic damages. | Plaintiff (Barone) asserts restriction only covers threshold claims under §3135(1). | Defendant argues §3135(2)(c) precludes noneconomic damages for uninsured motorists across all claims. | Restriction limited to threshold claims under §3135(1). |
| Whether intentional-harm claims fall outside no-fault immunity. | Plaintiff contends intentional-harm claims are outside no-fault and not limited by §3135(2)(c). | Defendant contends no-fault immunity covers all but intentional-harm claims within §3135(3). | §3135(3)(a) preserves tort liability for intentionally caused harm. |
Key Cases Cited
- American Alternative Ins Co, Inc v York, 470 Mich 28 (2004) (no-fault immunity with exceptions for certain harms)
- Robertson v DaimlerChrysler Corp, 465 Mich 732 (2002) (statutory interpretation and implied exclusions)
- Hoerstman Gen Contracting, Inc v Hahn, 474 Mich 66 (2006) (expressio unius est exclusio alterius principle)
- Hicks v Vaught, 162 Mich App 438 (1987) (intent requirement for §3135(2)(a)/(3)(a) applicability)
- Driver v Naini, 490 Mich 239 (2011) (statutory interpretation of no-fault provisions)
- Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (standard for reviewing motions for summary disposition)
- Klooster v City of Charlevoix, 488 Mich 289 (2011) (statutory construction principles and plain language approach)