Source: https://michiganlawyerblog.wordpress.com/2011/06/27/msc-mccormick-lives-for-now/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:48:07+00:00

Document:
In our current issue, we have a 25-year retrospective look at the Michigan No-fault Act, a large part of which was dedicated to the instability in third-party injury threshold. All of the attorneys we spoke with mentioned the instability as being severely detrimental. Some questioned, considering the reemergence of Republican control over the Michigan Supreme Court, whether another change would be coming.
This morning, in an order denying leave to hear Wiedyk v. Poisson and Brown v. Blouir the Court declined to consider whether its 2010 decision in McCormick v. Carrier, which ushered in the most recent change in the threshold inquiry, was correctly decided.
In a concurring opinion, Chief Justice Robert P. Young Jr. seemed to acknowledge the futility in playing legal tennis with the threshold inquiry and asked the Legislature to choose between McCormick and its predecessor, Kreiner v. Fischer.
We have reached the point again where the Legislature must speak if it wishes to preserve the no-fault act’s compromise between the provision of quick, generous insurance benefits without proof of fault and the act’s restrictions on access to additional tort recovery. No one actually attempts to justify having both the most generous automobile insurance benefits in the nation and a tort system where virtually any auto injury would satisfy the noneconomic damages exception to no-fault. Yet, while Kreiner v. Fischer preserved that distinction, McCormick v Carrier ignored and eliminated it.
reconsideration from our order remanding this case in light of McCormick, wherein defendant asks this Court to reconsider whether McCormick was correctly decided.
Young compared the current situation to those of the mid-1990s, when the Court’s decision in DiFranco v. Pickard led the Legislature to pass a law to codify DiFranco’s predecessor, Cassidy v. McGovern.
Justice Stephen J. Markman concurred, essentially saying that now is not the time to reconsider McCormick, thus leaving open the idea that it might not be the case in the future.
Justice Michael F. Cavanagh also concurred, arguing that McCormick shouldn’t be reconsidered because it was correctly decided. This shouldn’t surprise anyone considering Cavanagh wrote the McCormick decision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.