NATHANIEL CUNNINGHAM V FARM BUREAU GENERAL INS CO OF MICHIGAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NATHANIEL CUNNINGHAM,
UNPUBLISHED
March 6, 2007
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 271201
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 04-436648-NI
FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION and
CHIREST THOMPSON,
Defendants.
Before: Hoekstra, P.J., and Markey and Wilder, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals by leave granted from the circuit court’s order denying its motion for
summary disposition. We reverse. This case is being decided without oral argument in
accordance with MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff elected to use a company car to pick up his girlfriend when she called to say that
she needed assistance. En route, plaintiff was injured when an uninsured motorist rear-ended
him. Plaintiff maintains that he was never told he was not allowed to use the vehicle for a
personal errand, but plaintiff’s employer testified on deposition that he had expressly and
repeatedly denied plaintiff’s request for permission for that particular use.
Plaintiff sought compensatory damages from defendant under the uninsured motorist
coverage included with his employer’s insurance contract with defendant. The latter denied
liability on the grounds that plaintiff was driving the subject vehicle without permission at the
time and that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function. The trial court
rejected both arguments, and so denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition. We agree
with defendant that plaintiff has failed to show a serious impairment of body function for
purposes of restoring tort liability under the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq.
-1-
MCL 500.3135(1) provides that “[a] person remains subject to tort liability for
noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if
the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious
disfigurement.” Subsection (7) states that, “‘serious impairment of body function’ means an
objectively manifested impairment of an important body function that affects the person’s
general ability to lead his or her normal life.” MCL 500.3135(7). Subsection (2)(a) establishes
that whether a person has suffered serious impairment of a body function is a question of law for
the court where there is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the injuries, or
where such factual dispute is not material to the question whether the person has suffered serious
impairment of a body function. MCL 500.3135(2)(a). Accordingly, “the issue . . . should be
submitted to the jury only when the trial court determines that an ‘outcome-determinative
genuine factual dispute’ exists.” Miller v Purcell, 246 Mich App 244, 247; 631 NW2d 760
(2001), quoting Kern v Blethen-Coluni, 240 Mich App 333, 341; 612 NW2d 838 (2000).
Our Supreme Court’s decision in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611
(2004), indicates that the conditions reinstating tort liability under the no-fault act are not lightly
to be found. “Although some aspects of a plaintiff’s entire normal life may be interrupted by the
impairment, if . . . the course or trajectory of the plaintiff’s normal life has not been affected,
then the plaintiff’s ‘general ability’ to lead his normal life has not been affected” for purposes of
establishing a serious impairment. Id. at 131. The focus is not on the plaintiff’s subjective pain
and suffering, but on injuries that actually affect the functioning of the body. Miller, supra at
249. Residual impairments based on perceived pain are a function of “physician-imposed
restrictions,” not “[s]elf-imposed restrictions.” Kreiner, supra at 133 n 17.
The following nonexhaustive list of objective factors may be of assistance
in evaluating whether the plaintiff’s “general ability” to conduct the course of his
normal life has been affected: (a) the nature and extent of the impairment, (b) the
type and length of treatment required, (c) the duration of the impairment, (d) the
extent of any residual impairment, and (e) the prognosis for eventual recovery.
[Id. at 133. (Footnote omitted).]
Plaintiff testified at deposition that he could no longer lift over 50 pounds, play
basketball, or engage in weight lifting, but admitted that no physician had restricted him from
any of those activities. Plaintiff additionally protests that he was unable to return to work until
after five months after the accident. But the disability certificates in the record indicate that
plaintiff was deemed totally disabled only from the time of the accident until several weeks later,
and that thereafter he was only partially disabled, while making steady progress on his ability to
lift, stand, and drive. For all but the first few weeks, then, plaintiff suffered only partial
disabilities of a sort that should have left him eligible for many kinds of employment, perhaps
including his original line of work. Moreover, plaintiff points to no evidence of any job
opportunity he was obliged to refuse because of his injuries.
Because the record indicates that medically imposed restrictions diminished to nothing
over a period of just five months, and concerned mostly partial disabilities relating to certain
household chores, we conclude that plaintiff has failed to present evidence sufficient to create a
question of fact concerning whether the accident in question seriously affected plaintiff’s general
ability to lead his normal life. Accordingly, the trial court erred in failing to grant defendant’s
motion for summary disposition on that ground.
-2-
In light of our resolution of this case, we need not reach the question whether the trial
court additionally erred in concluding as a matter of law that the policy exclusion for persons
using the insured vehicle without permission did not apply.
Reversed. We do not retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.