Julie Garcia v. Dale Andrew Doyle

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