Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #249248; Unpublished
Judges Whitbeck, Owens, and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Home Accommodations [3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that a no-fault insurance company who constructed a new home for a quadriplegic accident victim was entitled to a security interest in the new home to secure its investment for a reasonable amount of time so that the insurer’s investment could be recouped and reinvested in another home should the patient decide to move. The court did not express any opinion with respect to the proposed terms of the security agreement or its length. The court stated that these issues deal with “reasonableness,” which is generally a question of fact. In expressing this holding, the court stated:
“. . . defendant here is seeking a security interest rather than an ownership interest. . . . we must determine whether the security interest sought by defendant is reasonable in light of the no-fault act’s public policy of providing sufficient accommodations at the lowest possible cost to the system. . . . Defendant’s argument at trial and on appeal, which is not disputed by plaintiff, is that defendant is required to pay for plaintiff’s housing for the rest of plaintiff’s life; if plaintiff were to decide to move two years after the current house was remodeled, defendant would be required to remodel another house. If this situation were to occur, we question whether any court would find the resulting expense reasonable. Nevertheless, without a security interest in the house currently in dispute, defendant would be unable to recoup and reinvest the funds expended on the current house toward remodeling the second house. Without the security interest in defendant, plaintiff would be entitled to the entire net proceeds of the sale. Under these circumstances, we find that defendant is reasonably entitled to a security interest. While reasonableness of accommodations is generally a question for the fact finder, if it can be stated with certainty that the accommodations are reasonable, a court can decide the issue as a matter of law.”
It is clear from the court’s opinion that the existence and extent of any security interest for the benefit of a no-fault insurer will be decided on a case-by-case basis that will be dependent on the totality of the circumstances.
