Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket Nos. 244824 and 245363; Unpublished
Judges Fitzgerald, Jansen, and Talbot; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Requirement That Benefits Were Overdue [3148(1)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [3148(1)]
Insurer’s Right to Penalty Attorney Fees for Fraudulent / Excessive Claims [3148(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held the trial court clearly erred by denying the defendant insurance company’s motion for attorney fees under §3148(2), where plaintiff had originally sought nearly $158,000 in damages, then later waived all but medical expenses for approximately $82,000, and the jury had found that plaintiff was entitled to $4,000 for such medical expenses.
Under §3148(2), an insurer is entitled to an award of attorney fees for defending against a claim that was “in some respect fraudulent or so excessive as to have no reasonable foundation.” The defendant argued that the extreme difference in the damages plaintiff requested and the damages the jury actually awarded clearly evidenced that some of the requested damages were excessive or fraudulent. The Court of Appeals agreed with defendant that a $4,000 verdict on an $82,000 claim is evidence that the jury found that plaintiff’s claim was in some respect fraudulent or so excessive as to have no reasonable foundation, and the matter was remanded to the trial court for the award of a reasonable sum under §3148(2).
The Court of Appeals further reversed the trial court award of attorney fees to the plaintiff based upon the failure of the trial court to make a finding regarding whether the delay or refusal in payment of those benefits was unreasonable. The court held that under §3148(1), a plaintiff is entitled to attorney fees when the benefits it seeks are overdue and if the court finds that the insurer unreasonably refused to pay the claim or unreasonably delayed in making proper payment. The statute requires the court to make this finding as a separate determination after the jury determines whether the benefits are overdue.
