Court Opinion

ID: 9720864
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:43:34.59045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:21.873251
License: Public Domain

R. M. Maher, J.
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I agree that reversal is required and concur in the majority opinion as to the first two issues. I cannot agree, however, that the serious impairment/permanent disfigurement threshold *32does not apply to suits against uninsured motorists.
The language of the statute is clear. MCL 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1), abolishes tort liability for noneconomic loss (e.g. pain and suffering, emotional distress) resulting from minor injuries. Recovery of noneconomic loss from minor injuries is absolutely prohibited. The focus is on the seriousness of the injury; no mention is made of the insured or uninsured status of the tortfeasor. It is subsection (2) of § 3135 which deals with the exemption from liability of insured — as opposed to uninsured — motorists. As to insured motorists, all tort liability, including liability for both noneconomic loss and economic loss (e.g. lost wages, medical expenses), is abolished, with the exception of loss resulting from intentional torts, noneconomic loss from serious injuries, and expenses, work loss and survivor’s loss in excess of the statutory limitations. Uninsured motorists remain liable for all economic losses and for noneconomic loss except as limited by the threshold provision in subsection (1).
For example, if a claimant is injured through the negligence of an uninsured motorist, suffering neither serious impairment of body function nor permanent serious disfigurement, he may not bring an action for noneconomic loss such as pain and suffering. If he has suffered loss of wages and incurred medical costs, however, he is entitled to maintain an action against the uninsured motorist to recover those losses. If, on the other hand, this same claimant has been injured to the same extent by an insured motorist, he is not entitled to maintain an action either for noneconomic loss or for his lost wages and medical expenses (assuming that his losses do not exceed the statutory limits), *33but must obtain PIP benefits from his insurer (or from another insurer if the statute so provides).
It should be noted that a person injured by an uninsured motorist will in most cases be entitled to first-party benefits (reimbursing him for economic loss) either from his own insurer or from the assigned claims fund.1 The injured person’s right of action against the uninsured motorist will therefore be exercised by an insurance company entitled to subrogation by reason of having compensated the injured person for his economic loss.
To hold, as the majority does, that a person injured by an uninsured motorist may sue for noneconomic loss for injuries which do not meet the threshold of § 3135(1) is to give the victim of an uninsured motorist a right to recover benefits which the person injured by an insured motorist does not have. Both classes of injured persons are entitled to recover for economic loss from the insurer of the injured person, the driver or the vehicle owner. Where no one involved in the accident is insured, the injured person is entitled to benefits from the assigned claims fund. In addition, both classes of injured persons are entitled to sue for noneconomic loss if their injuries meet the threshold requirements of § 3135(1). Under no circumstances may the victim of an insured motorist recover noneconomic loss unless his injury meets the threshold. The same should be true of the victims of uninsured motorists.
Although it is true that the Supreme Court in Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554; 267 NW2d 72 (1978), in ruling on a due process and equal protection challenge to the no-fault statute, apparently assumed that traditional tort liability *34continues as to uninsured motorists, the Court did not clearly hold that its interpretation of § 3135 applied the threshold requirement only to insured tortfeasors.2 Until the Supreme Court expressly rules on the question, I will adhere to the view expressed in Schigur v West Bend Mutual Ins Co, 80 Mich App 640; 264 NW2d 83 (1978), and McKendrick v Petrucci, 71 Mich App 200; 247 NW2d 349 (1976).3
I would hold that the threshold requirement applies to actions against both insured and uninsured motorists.

 Assuming, of course, that recovery is not barred by MCL 500.3113; MSA 24.13113.

 The Supreme Court in a footnote in Shavers, cited in text supra, assumed that the Legislature intended to retain traditional tort liability for uninsured motorists as an incentive to purchase insurance. In view of the penalties imposed elsewhere in the statute, MCL 500.3113; MSA 24.13113, the slight additional threat of a claim for noneconomic benefits for minor injuries seems unlikely to provide a substantial incentive to purchase insurance.

 Leave to appeal has been granted in Schigur, 402 Mich Mich 950q (1978).