Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259944; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Markey, and Meter; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Home Accommodations [3107(1)(a)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Overdue [3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the jury verdict awarding plaintiff $179,539 in no-fault benefits for the cost of home modifications and $1,908 in no-fault interest. The court also affirmed a $78,369 award of attorney fees under MCL 500.3148, and as a sanction under MCR 2.405. In affirming, the Court of Appeals first found the plaintiff was properly allowed to introduce evidence of defendant’s claims handling history. In so finding, it determined the evidence was probative as to whether defendant’s proposed home modification plan was reasonable. In this regard, the court stated:
“In this case, the jury was required to determine the reasonable cost for modifications to plaintiff’s home that were reasonably necessary to accommodate plaintiff’s care, recovery, and rehabilitation. MCL 500.3107(1)(a). The parties disagreed on what expenses were both reasonable and reasonably necessary for plaintiff’s care, recovery, and rehabilitation. We agree with the trial court that the evidence of defendant’s claims handling history was probative of the reasonableness of its proposed expenses. Under the factual circumstances of this case, evidence that defendant acted unreasonably with respect to plaintiff’s past claims was probative of whether the plan it is now offering was a reasonable one.”
The court next rejected defendant’s argument that the jury’s finding regarding the reasonableness of the home modification should have been treated as a declaratory judgment rather than a money judgment, because the expense had not yet been incurred. Similarly, it also rejected defendant’s argument that because the expense had not been incurred, it was not overdue and subject to sanctions. In finding that the expense had been incurred, the court noted that plaintiff had signed a contract for the home modifications which was one of the manners in which the Michigan Supreme Court determined that an insured could be found liable for expenses. In this regard, the court cited Proudfoot v State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 469 Mich 476 (2003) [RB #2389], in which the Supreme Court observed:
“‘An insured could be liable for costs by various means, including paying for costs out of pocket or signing a contract for products or services. Should the insured present a contract for products or services rather than a paid bill, the insurance company may, in order to protect itself, make its check payable to the insured and the contractor.’ Thus, the home modification expense was incurred in this case because plaintiff had signed a contract for the work.”
