Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 289671; Unpublished
Judges Meter, Fitzgerald, and M.J. Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
Application for Leave DENIED by the Michigan Supreme Court on 9/21/11; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Handicapper Motor Vehicles [3107(1)(a)]
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that defendant State Farm was not obligated to pay the full costs for the plaintiff's current apartment rental costs, as well as the full cost of a new condominium, including ongoing expenses of ownership, such as property taxes, home insurance, and association fees, under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) of the No-Fault Act. However, the court did uphold the trial court determination that State Farm was obligated to pay the full cost to purchase and insure plaintiff’s modified van.
Plaintiff suffered a spinal cord injury which resulted in a complete loss of function from the chest down and only limited use of her arms. Because her home could not be modified to accommodate her injury, State Farm temporarily paid the full cost of plaintiff’s rental cost for an apartment. However, State Farm later reduced this amount to an amount equal to the difference between plaintiff’s pre-injury and post-injury housing costs. This action was brought seeking payment of the full cost of the apartment rental, as well as the full cost of plaintiff’s modified van and the cost to insure the van. Plaintiff also sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm was responsible for the full cost of a condominium of a similar size as her previous home, but with accommodations for her current physical needs, along with additional expenses related to ownership of the condominium.
In reversing the trial court determination in favor of plaintiff with regard to the home accommodations, the Court of Appeals held that there was no dispute that plaintiff was entitled to some benefit relating to her housing cost. However, in rejecting plaintiff’s argument that under Sharp v Preferred Risk Mut Ins Co, 142 Mich App 499 (1985), the defendant was obligated to provide the full cost of the accommodated housing, the Court of Appeals held that under the recently decided case of Ward v Titan Ins Co, 287 Mich App 552 (2010), the Supreme Court decision in Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 (2005) governs the issues. In Ward, the Court of Appeals held that, pursuant to Griffith, “housing costs are only compensable to the extent that those costs become greater as a result of the accident.”
The Court of Appeals further noted that in its holding in Hoover v Michigan Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 617 (2008), in addressing an issue with regard to expenses related to a home, the trial court was not permitted to simply award the portion of the bill attributable to the injured person’s usage, because some of those costs would have been incurred regardless of whether an injury had occurred.
In this case, the Court of Appeals held that both Hoover and Ward were binding in the instant case pursuant to MCR 7.215(J)(1). Therefore, the trial court’s reliance on Sharp in determining that plaintiff’s full housing costs were allowable expenses as a matter of law was error.
With regard to the claim that the insurance company was obligated to provide for the full cost of a modified van, however, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court determination in this regard, pursuant to its previous decision in Davis v Citizens Ins Co, 195 Mich App 323 (1992). The court further pointed out that under the recent decision in Begin v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 284 Mich App 581 (2009), that court held that “because Davis was issued on or after November 1, 1990, the Davis decision is binding precedential authority until it is ‘reversed or modified by the Supreme Court, or by a special panel’ of this Court. MCR 7.215(J)(1).” Therefore, the trial court did not err in ordering defendant to reimburse plaintiff for the full cost of the van.
