MCL § 500.3135 – Tort liability threshold
Table of Contents
Code Details
Chapter 500
Act 218 of 1956
218-1956-31
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
Sec. 3135.(1) A person remains subject to tort liability for noneconomic loss caused by his or her ownership, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle only if the injured person has suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.
(2) For a cause of action for damages under subsection (1) or (3)(d), all of the following apply:
(a) The issues of whether the injured person has suffered serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement are questions of law for the court if the court finds either of the following:
(i) There is no factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person’s injuries.
(ii) There is a factual dispute concerning the nature and extent of the person’s injuries, but the dispute is not material to the determination whether the person has suffered a serious impairment of body function or permanent serious disfigurement. However, for a closed-head injury, a question of fact for the jury is created if a licensed allopathic or osteopathic physician who regularly diagnoses or treats closed-head injuries testifies under oath that there may be a serious neurological injury.
(b) Damages must be assessed on the basis of comparative fault, except that damages must not be assessed in favor of a party who is more than 50% at fault.
(c) Damages must not be assessed in favor of a party who was operating his or her own vehicle at the time the injury occurred and did not have in effect for that motor vehicle the security required by section 3101(1) at the time the injury occurred.
(3) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, tort liability arising from the ownership, maintenance, or use within this state of a motor vehicle with respect to which the security required by section 3101(1) was in effect is abolished except as to:
(a) Intentionally caused harm to persons or property. Even though a person knows that harm to persons or property is substantially certain to be caused by his or her act or omission, the person does not cause or suffer that harm intentionally if he or she acts or refrains from acting for the purpose of averting injury to any person, including himself or herself, or for the purpose of averting damage to tangible property.
(b) Damages for noneconomic loss as provided and limited in subsections (1) and (2).
(c) Damages for allowable expenses, work loss, and survivor’s loss as defined in sections 3107 to 3110, including all future allowable expenses and work loss, in excess of any applicable limit under section 3107c or the daily, monthly, and 3-year limitations contained in those sections, or without limit for allowable expenses if an election to not maintain that coverage was made under section 3107d or if an exclusion under section 3109a(2) applies. The party liable for damages is entitled to an exemption reducing his or her liability by the amount of taxes that would have been payable on account of income the injured person would have received if he or she had not been injured.
(d) Damages for economic loss by a nonresident. However, to recover under this subdivision, the nonresident must have suffered death, serious impairment of body function, or permanent serious disfigurement.
(e) Damages up to $1,000.00 to a motor vehicle or, for motor vehicle accidents that occur after July 1, 2020, up to $3,000.00 to a motor vehicle, to the extent that the damages are not covered by insurance. An action for damages under this subdivision must be conducted as provided in subsection (4).
(4) All of the following apply to an action for damages under subsection (3)(e):
(a) Damages must be assessed on the basis of comparative fault, except that damages must not be assessed in favor of a party who is more than 50% at fault.
(b) Liability is not a component of residual liability, as prescribed in section 3131, for which maintenance of security is required by this act.
(c) The action must be commenced, whenever legally possible, in the small claims division of the district court or the municipal court. If the defendant or plaintiff removes the action to a higher court and does not prevail, the judge may assess costs.
(d) A decision of the court is not res judicata in any proceeding to determine any other liability arising from the same circumstances that gave rise to the action.
(e) Damages must not be assessed if the damaged motor vehicle was being operated at the time of the damage without the security required by section 3101(1).
(5) As used in this section, “serious impairment of body function” means an impairment that satisfies all of the following requirements:
(a) It is objectively manifested, meaning it is observable or perceivable from actual symptoms or conditions by someone other than the injured person.
(b) It is an impairment of an important body function, which is a body function of great value, significance, or consequence to the injured person.
(c) It affects the injured person’s general ability to lead his or her normal life, meaning it has had an influence on some of the person’s capacity to live in his or her normal manner of living. Although temporal considerations may be relevant, there is no temporal requirement for how long an impairment must last. This examination is inherently fact and circumstance specific to each injured person, must be conducted on a case-by-case basis, and requires comparison of the injured person’s life before and after the incident.
MCL § 500.3135 Summary
This Michigan statute outlines the conditions under which a person involved in a motor vehicle accident can sue for “noneconomic loss,” also known as pain and suffering. Generally, under Michigan’s no-fault system, a person is only subject to tort liability for noneconomic damages if the injured party has suffered death, a “serious impairment of body function,” or “permanent serious disfigurement.” The statute specifies that whether an injury constitutes a serious impairment or permanent disfigurement is typically a question of law for the court, unless there’s a factual dispute that isn’t material to the determination. However, for closed-head injuries, a jury question is created if a qualified physician testifies about a potential serious neurological injury.
The statute also establishes rules for awarding damages, including comparative fault (where a person more than 50% at fault cannot recover) and the inability to recover if operating an uninsured vehicle. It clarifies that Michigan’s no-fault system generally abolishes tort liability for motor vehicle accidents, with exceptions for intentionally caused harm, noneconomic losses meeting the “threshold” (death, serious impairment, or permanent serious disfigurement), certain economic losses (like excess medical expenses or work loss beyond insurance limits), and property damage to vehicles up to $1,000 (or $3,000 after July 1, 2020), which is often referred to as “mini-tort” claims. Non-residents can also recover economic loss if they meet the threshold. Crucially, the statute provides a precise three-part definition for “serious impairment of body function,” emphasizing that it must be objectively manifested, involve an important body function, and affect the injured person’s general ability to lead their normal life.
Purpose of MCL § 500.3135
The legislative intent behind this Michigan statute is to balance the goals of the state’s no-fault auto insurance system: providing prompt compensation for economic losses without regard to fault, while limiting the ability to sue for subjective noneconomic damages (like pain and suffering) to the most severe cases. By establishing a “tort liability threshold,” the statute aims to reduce the volume of lawsuits for minor injuries, thereby helping to keep insurance premiums more affordable and streamline the claims process. It ensures that only those who have suffered truly significant and objectively verifiable harm can pursue compensation for pain, suffering, and other non-monetary losses from the at-fault driver. This threshold serves as a gatekeeper, distinguishing between routine injuries covered by no-fault benefits and catastrophic injuries that warrant additional legal recourse. The detailed definition of “serious impairment of body function” was added to provide clearer guidance for courts and litigants, aiming for more consistent application of the law.
Real-World Example of MCL § 500.3135
Imagine Sarah is driving home when she is T-boned by Mark, who ran a red light. Sarah suffers a fractured femur, a concussion, and significant nerve damage in her leg. Her initial medical bills are covered by her no-fault insurance. However, the nerve damage leaves her with chronic pain, a permanent limp, and she can no longer participate in her passion for competitive running, which was a significant part of her social life and identity. She also struggles with daily activities like walking her dog or performing her job, which requires her to stand for long periods.
Under MCL § 500.3135, Sarah would likely meet the “serious impairment of body function” threshold. Her injuries are *objectively manifested* (fracture, nerve damage visible on scans, chronic limp). They affect an *important body function* (the ability to walk, run, and perform daily activities). Most importantly, they *affect her general ability to lead her normal life*, significantly altering her capacity to engage in activities she enjoyed and impacting her professional life. Because she meets this threshold, Sarah can sue Mark for noneconomic damages, such as her pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, and emotional distress, in addition to any economic losses her no-fault insurance doesn’t cover (like future excess medical expenses or work loss). If Sarah had only suffered minor whiplash that resolved in a few weeks with minimal impact on her daily life, she would likely not meet the threshold and would be limited to her no-fault benefits for economic losses.
Related Statutes
- MCL § 500.3101 – Security for payment of benefits; definitions; exclusions: This statute establishes the requirement for all motor vehicles operated in Michigan to have no-fault insurance, which is the foundational “security” referenced throughout MCL § 500.3135. Without this security, recovery rights under the no-fault system are significantly limited.
- MCL § 500.3107 – Allowable expenses; work loss; survivor’s loss; replacement services: This statute defines the types of “first-party” benefits (allowable expenses, work loss, and survivor’s loss) that are covered by Michigan’s no-fault insurance, which MCL § 500.3135 references in the context of specific economic losses that can still be claimed in a tort action.
- MCL § 500.3107c – Coverage options for bodily injury and property damage liability and personal protection insurance: This section details the various choices and limits for personal protection insurance (PIP) coverage under Michigan’s no-fault law, directly impacting the “limits” mentioned in MCL § 500.3135(3)(c) regarding future allowable expenses and work loss.
- MCL § 500.3131 – Residual liability insurance: This statute describes the required third-party liability coverage (residual liability) that Michigan drivers must carry. While MCL § 500.3135 generally abolishes tort liability, it carves out exceptions (the threshold injuries) that fall under this residual liability.
- MCL § 500.3109a – Coordination of benefits: This section, particularly subsection (2), relates to exclusions for medical expense coverage if a person has other health insurance, which MCL § 500.3135(3)(c) references concerning unlimited allowable expenses.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 500.3135
The interpretation of “serious impairment of body function” has been a central point of contention and development in Michigan case law. A landmark case that significantly clarified the meaning of this phrase following statutory amendments is:
- _Miller v. Purcell_, 497 Mich 91, 856 NW2d 527 (2014): This Michigan Supreme Court case provided crucial guidance on applying the three-part definition of “serious impairment of body function” found in MCL § 500.3135(5). It emphasized that the determination is inherently fact and circumstance-specific, requires a comparison of the injured person’s life before and after the incident, and that temporal considerations (how long the impairment lasts) are relevant but not determinative. The Court reiterated that the focus is on the impact on the plaintiff’s “general ability to lead his or her normal life,” not merely a specific activity. (Link to Google Scholar search for “Miller v. Purcell”)
Why MCL § 500.3135 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
For anyone involved in a Michigan car accident, understanding MCL § 500.3135 is absolutely crucial. This statute acts as the gatekeeper for recovering noneconomic damages – money for pain, suffering, emotional distress, and the loss of enjoyment of life.
For plaintiffs (the injured party), meeting the “serious impairment of body function” threshold is often the primary objective in a personal injury lawsuit. If their injuries don’t rise to this level, they are generally limited to receiving economic benefits from their own no-fault insurance (medical bills, lost wages, replacement services) and possibly a mini-tort claim for vehicle damage. A skilled personal injury attorney will meticulously document the objective manifestations of the injury, its impact on important bodily functions, and how it has profoundly affected the client’s ability to live their normal life, comparing “before and after” the accident. The closed-head injury exception provides a specific pathway for these complex injuries to reach a jury, highlighting the importance of physician testimony.
For defendants and their insurance companies, this statute provides a powerful defense mechanism. Their legal strategy often revolves around arguing that the plaintiff’s injuries, while perhaps real, do not meet the statutory definition of a “serious impairment” or “permanent serious disfigurement.” They will scrutinize medical records, independent medical examinations (IMEs), and the plaintiff’s daily activity levels to challenge the claim that the injury significantly impacts an important body function or general ability to lead a normal life. The comparative fault provision also allows defendants to reduce or eliminate their liability if the plaintiff was partially or mostly at fault. Furthermore, a defendant can escape liability if the plaintiff was driving without the required no-fault insurance.
In essence, MCL § 500.3135 shapes the entire landscape of Michigan auto accident litigation, dictating which cases can proceed to seek noneconomic damages and influencing both plaintiff and defense strategies from the very beginning.