|
No. 135778
| Robert E. Benefiel, |
|
Mark R. Granzotto |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Livingston - Reader, D.) |
|
|
| Auto-Owners Insurance Company, |
|
Allen J. Philbrick |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Reply Brief>>
Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc.'s Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Robert Benefiel was injured in a 2002 car accident. He began treatment with a physician for neck injuries, and was restricted to “ultra-light-duty” at work. Benefiel sued the driver of the vehicle that hit him, claiming he suffered a serious impairment of a body function and was entitled to recover non-economic damages under Michigan’s no-fault statute, MCL 500.3135 et seq.; that case was settled. In 2003, Benefiel was injured in a second car accident. He continued to feel pain in his neck and ultimately underwent an MRI that revealed a herniated disc; he had surgery to correct this injury later that year. Following surgery, Benefiel was off work for three and a half months, and continued to complain of pain. He sued Auto-Owners Insurance Company for noneconomic injuries from the second accident. According to his testimony, before his 2002 accident, Benefiel golfed once or twice a week, water-skied three or four times a year, rode horseback a few times a year, and occasionally rode a bicycle. He was unable to resume any of those activities before the second accident. Auto-Owners moved to dismiss the case, arguing that Benefiel’s general ability to lead his normal life was not affected by the second accident. The trial court granted Auto-Owners’ motion, stating that “nothing indicates that the course or trajectory of his life has been affected by the second accident.” But the Court of Appeals reversed in a published opinion. The panel held that, in determining the plaintiff’s “normal lifestyle,” the time frame includes Benefiel’s life before the first accident. Benefiel had established that the course of his normal life was affected by the injuries he sustained in the second accident, the appellate court found. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court, instructing the trial judge that, if the jury finds it impossible to differentiate between the damages caused by the first and second accidents, Auto-Owners must be deemed responsible for all the injuries and damages sustained by Benefiel. Auto-Owners appeals.
Top of Page
|
