By Alethia Kasben
Gongwer News Service
A special panel should be convened to consider whether a 1993 Court of Appeals ruling that bars claims against a nonmotorist tortfeasor was correctly decided, a per curiam decision issued this week says.
In Call v. Frankenmuth Insurance Company (COA Docket No. 366229), a per curiam, published decision, the panel said its 1993 decision in Pezzani was wrongfully decided and should be reconsidered by a special panel.
Judge Michael Riordan, Judge Mark Boonstra, and Judge Christopher Yates signed the decision.
The 1993 ruling afforded preclusive effect to MCL 500.3116(2) to bar a claim against a nonmotorist tortfeasor.
In Call, the judges said they were bound by Pezzani, although they did not agree with the decision.
The 2025 case involved a couple who were badly injured in an auto accident after a tire came loose from another car, which had just had its tires rotated at a Family Tire. The Calls sued Family Tire seeking compensation for their injuries on a theory of common-law negligence.
The trial court dismissed the case against Family Tire and the Court of Appeals panel affirmed that ruling based on Pezzani.
The judges agreed with an analysis of Pezzani that called it “confused and confusing.”
“We call for the convening of a special panel pursuant to MCR 7.215(J)(3) to consider whether the holding in Pezzani should remain binding authority for interpreting the language of MCL 500.3116(2) to preclude common-law negligence claims against nonmotorist tortfeasors,” the decision says.
Gongwer News Service
A special panel should be convened to consider whether a 1993 Court of Appeals ruling that bars claims against a nonmotorist tortfeasor was correctly decided, a per curiam decision issued this week says.
In Call v. Frankenmuth Insurance Company (COA Docket No. 366229), a per curiam, published decision, the panel said its 1993 decision in Pezzani was wrongfully decided and should be reconsidered by a special panel.
Judge Michael Riordan, Judge Mark Boonstra, and Judge Christopher Yates signed the decision.
The 1993 ruling afforded preclusive effect to MCL 500.3116(2) to bar a claim against a nonmotorist tortfeasor.
In Call, the judges said they were bound by Pezzani, although they did not agree with the decision.
The 2025 case involved a couple who were badly injured in an auto accident after a tire came loose from another car, which had just had its tires rotated at a Family Tire. The Calls sued Family Tire seeking compensation for their injuries on a theory of common-law negligence.
The trial court dismissed the case against Family Tire and the Court of Appeals panel affirmed that ruling based on Pezzani.
The judges agreed with an analysis of Pezzani that called it “confused and confusing.”
“We call for the convening of a special panel pursuant to MCR 7.215(J)(3) to consider whether the holding in Pezzani should remain binding authority for interpreting the language of MCL 500.3116(2) to preclude common-law negligence claims against nonmotorist tortfeasors,” the decision says.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
