Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 345759, 345997, 345998, 346907; Unpublished
Judges Redford, Cavanagh, and Servitto; Per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
PIP Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement for Claims Paid Arising out of Uninsured Vehicle Injuries [§3177(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision dealing with consolidated cases, the Court of Appeals vacated in part four default judgments entered in favor of the plaintiffs, one in favor of Citizens Insurance Company of America, and the other three in favor of Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and remanded for the trial courts to properly address Citizens’ and Nationwide’s claims for loss adjustment costs under MCL 500.3177(1). In each of the four underlying cases, Citizens and Nationwide were assigned to handle the PIP claims of individuals injured as a result of motor vehicle collisions caused by uninsured drivers. The trial court entered default judgments in favor of Citizens and Nationwide in each case, but denied their requests for loss adjustment costs. The Court of Appeals determined that the trial courts’ failed to properly analyze their claims for loss adjustment costs, and thus remanded for reconsideration of those claims.
In docket no. 345991, defendant Ashley Monique Davis was involved in a motor vehicle collision in which her three passengers sustained injuries. Each of the passengers filed claims for PIP benefits with the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, who in turn assigned their claims to Citizens. Citizens filed a complaint against Davis seeking reimbursement for the PIP benefits it paid to each of her passengers, but Davis failed to respond to the complaint. A default was entered against Davis in the amount of $151,706.23, but the trial court denied Citizens’ request for loss adjustment costs and future attorney fees.
In docket no. 345997, defendant Stephani Mickens crashed into a motorcyclist while driving her uninsured vehicle. The motorcyclist filed for PIP benefits with the MACP, and the claim was assigned to Nationwide. Nationwide then filed a complaint against Mickens for reimbursement of the PIP benefits it paid to the motorcyclist, but Mickens failed to answer. The trial court entered a default judgment in favor of Nationwide, but denied Nationwide’s request for loss adjustment costs.
In docket no. 345998, defendant Amanda Renee Powell struck a pedestrian while driving her uninsured vehicle. The pedestrian filed for PIP benefits with MACP, and the claim was assigned to Nationwide. In Nationwide’s subsequent action against Powell for reimbursement of the PIP benefits it paid to the pedestrian, Powell failed to respond to the complaint and a default judgment was entered in Nationwide’s favor. The trial court, however, denied Nationwide’s request for loss adjustment costs.
And, in docket no. 346907, defendant Iesia Patrice Stacker was involved in a motor vehicle collision while driving her uninsured vehicle, and her passenger was injured. Her passenger filed a claim for PIP benefits with the MACP, and the MACP assigned her claim to Nationwide. Nationwide filed an action against Stacker for reimbursement of the PIP benefits it paid to her passenger, and a default judgment was ultimately entered in favor of Nationwide. The trial court, again, denied Nationwide’s request for loss adjustment costs.
On appeal, Citizens and Nationwide both argue that the trial courts erred by declining to award them loss adjustment costs under MCL 500.3177(1), and the Court of Appeals agreed. The Court of Appeals took exception with the trial court’s reasoning, in which it stated that it would not grant such costs merely because it did not generally do so. On remand, the Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to review Citizens’ and Nationwide’s claims for adjustment costs to properly determine whether to grant them and, if so, to determine the appropriate amounts.
That being said, we nevertheless find that the trial court erred by failing to properly address Citizens’ and Nationwide’s claims for loss adjustment costs. The trial court’s sole reason for declining to grant loss adjustment costs was a general policy against doing so, predicated on the presumption that loss adjusters should not be reimbursed for a job “the adjuster is paid to do.” There was no indication that the trial court took any time to consider whether Citizens and Nationwide made valid claims for loss adjustment costs, or whether they were entitled to recover an appropriate amount of loss adjustment costs, let alone properly exercised its discretion. Therefore, the trial court erred by failing to properly address and determine entitlement for claims for “appropriate loss adjustment costs.” On remand, the trial court must review Citizens’ and Nationwide’s claims for loss adjustment costs.
