On December 2nd the Michigan Supreme Court denied an invitation from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to answer certified questions, one of which asked the Court to consider whether a bodily injury is suffered intentionally when a person engages in reckless conduct that would lead a reasonable person to know that injury was substantially certain to occur, even though there is no evidence that the injured person subjectively intended to cause the injury. Most pertinent to the Court's Order is the concurring opinion of Justice Young, in which he cites with approval almost 30 years of appellate law decisions that construct MCL 500.3105(4) "to require that an injured person subjectively intend the injury, not merely the act, in order for an insurer to be relieved of its obligation to pay...benefits." The case involves a young man that suffered a catastrophic brain injury when he climbed on top of a stopped vehicle, which then proceeded to accelerate forward and throw him to the ground. Though there existed no evidence that the young man intended to hurt himself, the insurer refused to pay any benefits based on its argument that the statute requires the imposition of an objective standard, i.e., if a person engages in a an act knowing that bodily injury is substantially certain to occur, then any resulting injury arises from an intentional act. The case now heads back to the United States District Court. M&T partner Mark Schreier represented Lighthouse.  This significant ruling blocks insurers from denying No-Fault coverage for merely reckless acts and confirms that disqualifications can only occur if the injured person intended to hurt himself, i.e., a suicide attempt.  We will keep you posted on developments. In the meantime, to view the Order in its entirety please click here.       

Mark Schreier handled this case in which the bus of a governmental agency struck our paraplegic client.  The case litigated for almost two years before settlement occurred shortly before trial.  Our client, a 32 year old mother of two young children, suffered a crush injury to her dominant arm and two broken fingers.  During her post accident hospital admission she also developed an ischial wound from which an infection eventually developed. The injuries required ongoing medical treatment.

The case involved many complicated medical issues.  Fifteen years before the subject accident, our client suffered a spinal cord injury.  The defense endeavored to relate most of our client's current medical problems to her preexisting spinal cord injury and paraplegia.  We presented a bigger picture of how the bus accident impacted every aspect of our client's life, significantly decreased her quality of life, impacted her relationships with family and friends, and dramatically affected her independence.