Yvette Gentry v. Safeco Insurance
327862
| Mich. Ct. App. | Oct 11, 2016Background
- Plaintiff Yvette Gentry sued Safeco for uninsured motorist (UM) benefits after a May 2012 rear-end collision, alleging aggravation of preexisting injuries.
- Gentry had been in a prior rear-end collision in March 2012, received ongoing treatment (Michigan Pain and Rehab and chiropractic care) and reported persistent pain before the May 2012 accident.
- Gentry testified she had not worked since 2008, stayed at home, watched television, and had few activities before the May 2012 accident.
- Medical records and pain scores (5–6) showed little or no change before and after the May 2012 accident.
- Safeco moved for summary disposition; the trial court granted the motion, concluding Gentry failed to raise a genuine issue that the May 2012 accident affected her general ability to lead her normal life.
- Gentry appealed; the Court of Appeals reviewed the summary disposition de novo under MCR 2.116(C)(10) and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Gentry suffered a "serious impairment of body function" because the May 2012 accident affected her general ability to lead her normal life | Gentry argued the May 2012 accident aggravated preexisting injuries and thus affected her general ability to lead her normal life | Safeco argued Gentry did not present evidence showing any change in her general ability to lead her normal life after the May 2012 accident | Court held Gentry failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact on the McCormick third prong and affirmed summary disposition in favor of Safeco |
Key Cases Cited
- Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich. 105 (de novo review of summary disposition standard)
- Walsh v. Taylor, 263 Mich. App. 618 (scope of evidence considered on MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Allison v. AEW Capital Mgmt., LLP, 481 Mich. 419 (definition of genuine issue of material fact)
- Rory v. Continental Ins. Co., 473 Mich. 457 (UM coverage governed by policy language; UM as substitute for third-party claim)
- Scott v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 266 Mich. App. 557 (policy language controls UM coverage interpretation)
- McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich. 180 (three-part test for "serious impairment of body function")
- Yono v. Dep’t of Transportation (On Remand), 306 Mich. App. 671 (treatment of motions when the court considers materials beyond pleadings)