Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
October 26, 2010 Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice
139101 Michael F. Cavanagh
Maura D. Corrigan
Robert P. Young, Jr.
Stephen J. Markman
Diane M. Hathaway
JAMES PLAGGEMEYER and RUTH Alton Thomas Davis,
PLAGGEMEYER, Justices
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v SC: 139101
COA: 284016
Muskegon CC: 07-045215-NI
THOMAS LEE, SUSAN LEE, and RYAN
E. LEE,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________/
By order of October 26, 2009, the application for leave to appeal the May 12, 2009
judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in
McCormick v Carrier (Docket No. 136738). On order of the Court, the case having been
decided on July 31, 2010, 487 Mich ___ (2010), the application is again considered.
Pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we VACATE in part
the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the Muskegon Circuit Court and REMAND
this case to the Muskegon Circuit Court for reconsideration of the defendants’ motion for
summary disposition regarding whether plaintiff James Plaggemeyer sustained a serious
impairment of body function in light of McCormick. In all other respects, leave to appeal
is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining question presented should
be reviewed by this Court.
We do not retain jurisdiction.
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
2
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.
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 _________________________________________
1018 Clerk