DARRELL SIKKENGA V CHARLES TOWNSEND
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
DARRELL SIKKENGA,
UNPUBLISHED
June 14, 2011
Plaintiff,
and
RUTH SIKKENGA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 297195
Muskegon Circuit Court
LC No. 09-046587-NI
CHARLES TOWNSEND,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: SHAPIRO, P.J., and O’CONNELL and OWENS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
In this action under the no-fault insurance act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., plaintiff Ruth
Sikkenga1 appeals as of right from the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for
summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). We vacate the trial court’s order and
remand for reconsideration in light of McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180; 795 NW2d 517
(2010).
Plaintiff sustained pelvic fractures in a 2007 automobile accident involving defendant.
Plaintiff and her husband filed a tort action against defendant in 2009. In February 2010,
defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff did not have a threshold injury
to support the tort action. The trial court agreed, and in March 2010 concluded that plaintiff’s
injuries did not meet the threshold requirement under the test set forth in Kreiner v Fischer, 471
Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004).
1
Plaintiff Darrell Sikkenga was dismissed with prejudice from the suit below so he is not a party
to this appeal. References to “plaintiff” in the singular throughout this opinion pertain to Ruth
Sikkenga only.
-1-
We review de novo a trial court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for summary
disposition. Spiek v Dep’t of Transp, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). The
determination of whether plaintiff’s suit can go forward is controlled by MCL 500.3135, which
reads in relevant part:
(1) 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.
***
(7) As used in this section, “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.
At the time the trial court rendered its decision, the application of this statute was controlled by
Kreiner. However, in July 2010, our Supreme Court issued McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich
180; 795 NW2d 517 (2010). The McCormick decision overruled the Kreiner Court’s
interpretation of MCL 500.3135.
Because the trial court utilized the now-overruled Kreiner standard, the trial court’s grant
of summary disposition must be vacated and the case remanded for further proceedings in light
of McCormick.
Vacated and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not
retain jurisdiction.
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
/s/ Peter D. O’Connell
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-2-
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.
