Court Opinion

ID: 9657496
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:27:57.816964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:45.710265
License: Public Domain

D. E. Holbrook, Jr., J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority inasmuch as I believe that the conflict on our Court stems from reliance on two different Supreme Court decisions. In Bradley v Mid-Century Ins Co, 409 Mich 1, 62; 294 NW2d 141 (1980), the Supreme Court said:
"If a motorist is uninsured he may be sued for all economic loss as well as above-threshold non-economic loss.”
This implies that noneconomic losses must meet the threshold requirements before recovery can be had against an uninsured motorist.
While in Citizens Ins Co of America v Tuttle, 411 Mich 536, 547; 309 NW2d 174 (1981), the Court said that:
"The non-motorist tortfeasor is the equivalent of the uninsured motorist and should be treated similarly. Both are outside the basic no-fault system of allocating the costs of accidents and both remain subject to tort liability.”
This implies that the uninsured motorist is simply outside the no-fault system and thus any noneconomic loss may be recovered from an uninsured motorist, subject of course to standard tort liability.
*8I recognize that the precise question that is before us in the instant case was not directly addressed by the Supreme Court. Thus, the question of whether noneconomic losses are subject to the threshold requirements is still open to interpretation.
After a careful review, I respectfully dissent. As either interpretation has support and the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, I see no reason to depart from my opinion expressed in Caplan v DAIIE, 102 Mich App 354; 301 NW2d 471 (1980), which follows the implications of Bradley, supra.