Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #289080; Unpublished
Meter, Fitzgerald, and M.J. Kelly; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
The Michigan Supreme Court granted mini oral argument on September 23, 2011; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Handicapper Motor Vehicles [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court determination that Auto-Owners was obligated under 3107a of the No-Fault Act to pay the full cost of a new modified van to meet plaintiff’s transportation needs.
Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1987, leaving him wheelchair-bound and requiring the use of a modified vehicle. A previous agreement in 2000 between plaintiff and Auto-Owners provided that Auto-Owners would pay for the cost of the modified van and that upon expiration of an estimated seven year operational use, the van could be traded-in on a “replacement van” with the equity or value of the former van applied toward the purchase price of a replacement. Upon expiration of the useful life of the original van, plaintiff traded it in for a new van and requested Auto-Owners to pay the full cost after subtracting the trade-in value of the original van. Auto-Owners contended that it was only obligated to pay for the expenses of modification, leaving an unpaid balance of approximately $18,000.
Auto-Owners argued that the provisions of the parties’ original written agreement were unambiguous, in that it provided that Auto-Owners “shall be responsible for the payment of the cost of maintenance, repairs, service, or replacement, if necessary, on the handicapped equipment.” In rejecting this argument, the court pointed out that this particular provision upon which Auto-Owners relied speaks only “to the vehicle itself” and clearly applied only to the “actual van purchased in 2000.” It did not address whether Auto-Owners was contractually obligated to buy plaintiff a new van at the expiration of the seven year period. The court ultimately concluded that the agreement was ambiguous, in that it clearly provided that Auto-Owners had to provide plaintiff with a van in 2000, but did not provide that defendant was required to buy a new van at the end of the useful life of that van. However, the contract also did not say that plaintiff was responsible for buying the new van. The contract does not say that anyone will pay for a new van. The court held that this created ambiguity and, therefore, proceeded to interpret the obligations of Auto-Owners under the No-Fault Act.
In affirming the trial court determination that Auto-Owners was obligated to pay for the cost of the new van, the court relied upon the published decision in Davis v Citizens Ins Co, 195 Mich App 323 (1992), in which it held that the cost of a modified van was an allowable expense under the facts of that case. Further, the court noted that a recent published decision in Begin v Michigan Bell Telephone Co, 284 Mich App 581 (2009), held that Davis was binding precedential authority pursuant to the provisions of MCR 7.215(J)(1) and that Davis was not overruled by Griffith pursuant to the holding in Begin, supra. In quoting from the Begin decision, the court pointed out that in certain circumstances:
“the product, service, or accommodation used by the injured person before the accident is so blended with another product, service, or accommodation that the whole cost is an allowable expense if it satisfies the statutory criteria of being sufficiently related to injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident and if it is a reasonable charge and reasonably necessary for the injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation under MCL 500.3107(1)(a).”
The court further rejected Auto-Owners’ contention that the van was not “reasonably necessary” for plaintiff’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation, because plaintiff could use public transportation services for those needs. The court held that plaintiff clearly established below that he could not drive a standard vehicle and needed a modified van for his transportation needs. The court held that Auto-Owners did not make a showing that plaintiff could easily use alternative transportation for his needs, nor did Auto-Owners establish that the requested amount for reimbursement was unreasonable.
The court held that under these circumstances, it could not conclude that the trial court erred in granting summary disposition to plaintiff and affirmed the ruling of the trial court.
