Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260561; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Bandstra, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Home Accommodations [3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Incurred Expense Requirement [3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a declaratory judgment in which the trial court determined defendant insurance company was liable to pay $250,000 for future modifications of plaintiff’s home, finding that the proposed alteration was reasonably necessary for plaintiff’s care. However, although the court affirmed, it remanded for the limited purpose of modifying the judgment to provide that the award is payable only if plaintiff actually incurred the expense.
In 1976, the plaintiff in this case sustained spinal injuries which rendered him a quadriplegic and confined him to a wheelchair. In 2002, plaintiff sought a declaration that his requested home modifications were a reasonable expense. The jury determined that the home modifications proposed by plaintiff’s architect were reasonably necessary for plaintiff’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation and awarded plaintiff $250,000. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict and defendant appealed. In affirming, the Court of Appeals first noted that plaintiff was unable to access two (2) levels in his quad-level home. Moreover, it noted that the previously installed ramps were unsafe and the elevator was unreliable as well as unsafe. It further noted that plaintiff was unable to reach the kitchen sink, stove, and countertop. It therefore found that reasonable minds could disagree as to whether the modifications were reasonably necessary for plaintiff’s care. In this regard, the court stated:
“After the accident, plaintiff was confined to a wheelchair. He was unable to access two levels in his quad-level home. During power outages, the overhead lift system used to move plaintiff was inoperable. When traveling from his lower level bedroom, bathroom, and office to the main level kitchen or living area, he was forced to use an interior elevator or traverse an outdoor ramp. However, the outdoor ramp was impassable in the winter months and the elevator was unreliable and extremely unsafe. Although plaintiff could access the kitchen area, he could not reach the kitchen sink, stove, or countertop. The ramp that provided ingress into the home from the garage was difficult to maneuver because it was too steep. According to David Esau, an architect with experience in designing barrier-free homes, plaintiff’s home was not suitable for his needs. Viewing this evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that reasonable minds could differ on the issue of whether the modifications were reasonably necessary for plaintiff’s care. Indeed, the evidence supports the conclusion that the modifications were necessitated by the injuries sustained by plaintiff in the motor vehicle accident. Therefore, defendant was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law and the trial court properly denied its motion for summary disposition.”
The Court of Appeals then determined that remand was necessary in order to modify the judgment to provide that the expenses were not payable unless and until they were incurred. In so ruling, the court noted that plaintiff had taken no action to become legally liable for the cost of the proposed modifications. Therefore, under Proudfoot v State Farm Mutual Insurance Company, 469 Mich 476 (2003) [RB #2389], the expenses had not been incurred.
