SUDDEN EMERGENCY DOCTRINE INSTRUCTION NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ACCIDENT CAUSED BY AN UNIDENTIFIED VEHICLE

Michelle M. Smigiel

In Paul & Paul v Farm Bureau Insurance Company of Michigan (Unpub, COA No.35936, April 6, 2023), the Plaintiffs Jerry and Joanne Paul were involved in a multi-vehicle accident which was the result of extreme whiteout conditions. They were not injured in the initial accident, however, Jerry ultimately exited the vehicle (Joanne remained inside) and it was then that another vehicle struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle causing Plaintiffs’ vehicle to strike Jerry, resulting in serious injury. The other vehicle was never identified and the Plaintiffs’ sought to recover PIP and UIM benefits from their insurer, Defendant Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau paid PIP benefits but denied UIM benefits and litigation ensued. The jury reached a verdict in Plaintiffs’ favor but the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for penalty interest. Defendant appealed and Plaintiffs’ cross-appealed.

The main issue on appeal was whether or not the trial court should have instructed the jury regarding the sudden emergency doctrine. The trial court declined to instruct the jury regarding the sudden emergency doctrine, reasoning that there was conflicting evidence as to the visibility when the unknown driver struck Plaintiffs’ vehicle, and there was no evidence regarding that driver’s speed, their attentiveness to the conditions, or any actions they may have taken to avoid the crash. The trial court concluded the evidence was speculative as to (1) what the weather conditions were at the exact moment the unknown driver struck plaintiffs’ vehicle and (2) what actions the unknown driver took before colliding with the plaintiffs’ vehicle and the sudden emergency doctrine only applies if a driver is in no way negligent.

The Court of Appeals found there was no dispute that the whiteout conditions encountered by the Plaintiffs satisfied the definition of a ‘sudden emergency’, however, all of the evidence that was presented during the trial showed that the weather conditions fluctuated throughout the entire, multi-vehicle and multi-impact accident. Because there was no evidence as to the unknown driver’s speed, whether or not they were distracted, whether or not they were following too closely or whether or not they slowed down upon confronting the poor visibility, there would be no basis for the jury to conclude that the unknown driver made a “proper and reasonable use of his senses under the circumstances” in order for a sudden emergency instruction to be appropriate. Thus, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by disallowing the sudden emergency doctrine instruction.

The Court further found that, even if the sudden emergency doctrine instruction should have been given to the jury, no reversible error occurred because the jury was fully and properly instructed on negligence and causation, and they were informed that their decision hinged on the weather conditions at the time of the second collision.

Finally, the Court determined that Plaintiffs were entitled to penalty interest because insurers can only withhold payment of benefits without fear of having to pay penalty interest in claims made by third-parties. Plaintiffs were not third-parties. Moreover, MCL 500.2006(4) controls the penalty interest at issue here such that Plaintiffs were not required to include a “claim” for penalty interest in their Complaint. Thus, Plaintiffs were entitled to penalty interest and the trial court’s denial of same was reversed.