Motion for Summary Disposition - Negligence, Causation, Serious Impairment of Bodily Function, Permanent Serious Disfigurement

MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION – NEGLIGENCE, SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF BODILY FUNCTION, PERMANENT SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT

STATE OF ________________

IN THE _________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ______________

PLAINTIFF Case No. _____________

Plaintiff,

v.

DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON THE ISSUES OF LIABILITY, CAUSATION, SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF BODY FUNCTION AND PERMANENT SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT

NOW COMES Plaintiff, by and through her attorneys and for her Motion for Summary Disposition on the Issues of Liability, Causation, Serious Impairment of Body Function and Permanent Serious Disfigurement, states as follows:

This matter involves an underinsured motorist claim for automobile negligence arising out of a [date] motor vehicle collision that caused serious, life-changing injuries to Plaintiff.

There are no questions of fact as to Defendant’s liability. Plaintiff was nearly stopped at a red light, when Defendant negligently crashed into her vehicle head-on. Liability is clear. This Court must rule as a matter of law that Defendant is 100% liable. Notably, Defendant has already tendered the full limit of his bodily injury policy, and this third party claim is proceeding as an underinsured motorist claim.¹

There are also no questions of fact as to the cause of Plaintiff’s injuries. Prior to this collision, Plaintiff had no prior history of foot problems. Her symptoms clearly began on [date], when she was hit head-on and her foot fractured. Further, Plaintiff’s treating surgeon directly relates her injuries to the motor vehicle collision. Defendant cannot rebut causation. Thus, this Court must rule as a matter of law that Plaintiff’s injuries were caused by this collision.

There is also no question that Plaintiff sustained a serious impairment of body function. Plaintiff’s entire lifestyle has been seriously affected by her collision-related injuries. She has been unable to work, and she has often been unable to perform basic tasks such as walking or standing. She has experienced difficulty and required the help of others to take care of herself, her household and her children, amongst other activities. Plaintiff’s injuries have been verified objectively, they clearly limit important body functions (use of the foot for standing and walking), and they affect her ability to perform her normal activities of daily living. (See McCormick v. Carrier, 487 Mich. 180 (2010).) Thus, this Court must rule as a matter of law that Plaintiff’s collision-related injuries satisfy the serious impairment of body function threshold.

There is also no question as to whether Plaintiff sustained permanent serious disfigurement as a result of this collision. “Whether an injury amounts to a permanent serious disfigurement depends on its physical characteristics rather than its effect on plaintiff’s ability to live a normal life.” Nelson v. Myers, 146 Mich. App. 444, 446 (1985). As a result of this collision, Plaintiff required multiple foot surgeries that left large, prominent and permanent scars. These scars are very visible and embarrassing for Plaintiff. Thus, this Court must rule as a matter of law that she has been permanently and seriously disfigured.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Honorable Court grant summary disposition in her favor on the issues of liability, causation, serious impairment of body function and permanent serious disfigurement.

Respectfully submitted,

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL J. MORSE, P.C.

Attorneys for Plaintiff

_____________________________________

[Name]

[Address]

[Phone number]

Dated:

STATE OF _____________________

IN THE _______________ COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF _____________

PLAINTIFF Case No. _____________

Plaintiff,

v.

DEFENDANT INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant.

BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON THE ISSUES OF UNINSURED STATUS, LIABILITY, CAUSATION, SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT OF BODY FUNCTION AND PERMANENT SERIOUS DISFIGUREMENT

I. STANDARD OF LAW

MCR 2.116(C)(10) provides, in pertinent part, that a motion for summary judgment may be brought when “[t]here is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.”

The standard of review regarding a motion for summary disposition based on MCR 2.116(C)(10) is well-settled. A party opposing summary disposition based on MCR 2.116(C)(10) must propound admissible evidence to establish the existence of a disputed material fact. DeSot v. ACIA, 174 Mich. App. 251; 435 N.W.2d 442 (1988). To preclude summary disposition based on the lack of a material factual dispute, a disputed factual issue must be material to the dispositive legal claims. Speculation and conjecture are insufficient to create an issue of material fact. Martin v. Ledingham, 282 Mich. App. 158; 774 N.W.2d 328 (2009). Where the evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 120; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999).

II. COLLISION AND LIABILITY

On [date], Plaintiff was driving westbound on ____________ Road in ______________. She was nearly stopped in the left-turn lane at the...