6 Logically, then, it must follow that Venicia and Kiaraare bound by their mother's deemed selection of the limited tort option, regardless of whether she had an insurance policy on her vehicle. To decide otherwise and to accept Appellants' argument would afford greater rights to minor children whose parents have no insurance than to minor children whose parents have purchased insurance and chosen the limited tort option. It is a well-settled principle of statutory construction that the legislature does not intend a result that is absurd or unreasonable. In any event, the order of the trial court is vacated, and this case is remanded to the trial court for it to consider Appellants' medical reports and whether they create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Venicia and Kiara suffered serious impairment of a body function. If so, the case should then proceed to trial.
Jurisdiction is relinquished.
This Court's scope of review of the trial court's grant of summary judgment is limited to determining whether the trial court committed an error of law or an abuse of discretion. Summary judgment is appropriate only where, after viewing the record, i.e., the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions and affidavits, if any, in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the court concludes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. As a result, the Court is unable to address Appellants' first contention, i.e., that the medical reports clearly establish serious impairment. The Court notes, however, that Dr. McKenzie's reports are referred to several times inAppellee's brief.