Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260422; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Bandstra, and Donofrio; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of defendant insurance company’s motion for a directed verdict, finding that the trial court properly allowed the jury to only consider accident-related bills on which defendant had made no payment.
The plaintiff in this case was injured in an accident with a car while riding his motorcycle. As the insurer of the driver of the car, defendant was responsible for plaintiff’s first-party no-fault personal injury protection benefits. Plaintiff sued defendant for payment of certain accident-related medical bills. Defendant moved for a directed verdict, claiming plaintiff had no claim for bills on which payment had been made. The trial court denied defendant’s motion and the jury returned a verdict in plaintiff’s favor and the trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees.
On appeal, defendant argued that its adjuster’s testimony that disputed bills were duplicate bills was sufficient evidence to dispute plaintiff’s assertion of non-payment. The Court of Appeals disagreed, noting that plaintiff created a genuine issue of material fact with evidence that an audit revealed that none of the disputed bills were duplicates of bills which had already been paid. The defendant next argued that the award of attorney fees was improper where there was no finding that its refusal to pay was unreasonable. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals determined that the record did in fact reveal that the jury found defendant unreasonably failed to make payment on certain bills that were due and owing and that defendant offered no evidence to rebut this conclusion.
Finally, the Court of Appeals rejected defendant’s argument that the attorney fee award was unreasonable, finding that defendant failed to specifically object to defendant’s detailed itemization in support of his request for attorney fees.
