Uninsured motorist (UM) benefits; “Serious impairment of body function”; MCL 500.3135(5); Objectively manifested impairment; General ability to lead one’s normal life

The court held that as plaintiff did not establish a factual dispute as to the third element of MCL 500.3135(5), he failed to establish “a serious impairment of a body function.” Thus, the trial court properly granted defendant-insurer’s motion for partial summary disposition as to his claim for UM benefits. The parties contested whether he “could successfully bring a third-party claim against [defendant-]Crawford, which plaintiff would be required to do to be entitled to UM benefits.” Plaintiff contended that “he suffered an objectively manifested impairment of a body function under MCL 500.3135.” The court concluded that he failed to show “that this accident affected his general ability to lead his normal life. Critically, when asked what he was able to do before the accident that he can no longer do, plaintiff answered, ‘[n]othing specific.’” Although he “was temporarily limited in performing two aspects of his multi-task, part-time job during the months he treated with the chiropractor, plaintiff only missed a single day of work. [He] also refrained from looking for secondary work as a freelance production assistant ‘for basically the rest of March’ because such work could involve lifting heavy cases. But plaintiff never actually turned down a freelance job and admitted that these job opportunities were ‘infrequent,’ occurring twice in a month, if he was ‘super lucky.’” Further, despite Dr. K’s “recommendations for household replacement and transportation services along with the chiropractor’s statements that plaintiff needed household services from [5/15] through [8/31/23], plaintiff testified that he was not making a claim for either. As to the transportation services, [he] testified that he drove himself even though it was uncomfortable to sit in the driver’s seat of his car, referencing the pain injection that he had received at the hospital. Further, there was no evidence of hobbies or activities that [he] was unable to engage in after the accident, including networking mixers and consumption of entertainment for plaintiff’s ‘actual career[.]’” In fact, he “testified that he did not engage in sports, work out, or participate in social clubs.” Thus, the court found that there was “no evidence that the accident resulted in plaintiff having continuing difficulties at home, at work, or in any other setting.” Affirmed.