Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 231610; Published
Judges Fitzgerald, Bandstra and Gage; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 253 Mich. App. 64, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [3107]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the fact that the plaintiff had obtained a jury verdict in a previous PIP benefits trial for medical expenses in the amount of $105,000 out of approximately $300,000 sought, does not give rise to any sort of binding ratio under which the insurance company was obligated to pay only one-third of the subsequent medical expenses submitted by the plaintiff.
Plaintiff sustained a closed head injury in an automobile accident in 1988. Since that time, plaintiff has required medical care, rehabilitation and constant daily medication. Plaintiff sought no-fault medical expense payments under section 3107 of the No-Fault Act. Defendant insurance company refused to cover all of the medical expenses, and consequently, litigation ensued in 1994. Plaintiff sought reimbursement for approximately $300,000 in medical expenses through the date of trial. A jury awarded only $105,000. Subsequent to that verdict, the insurance company took the position that it was only obligated to pay approximately one-third of plaintiff’s PIP benefit submissions for medical expenses thereafter. In subsequent litigation, the trial court dismissed plaintiff’s case seeking the full payment of medical expenses on the basis of a ruling in limine that the jury was going to be instructed to reduce its verdict by two-thirds.
The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court ruling. The court stated that the identical argument asserted by Auto Owners had been rejected in McMillan v Auto Club Insurance Association (On Remand), 199 Mich App 173; 502 NW2d 48 (1993). The court stated that the fact that the first lawsuit awarded plaintiff only one-third of the claimed benefits had no effect on plaintiff’s claims for future benefits. The prior verdict covered only expenses incurred up until the date of trial, and did not contain any declaration or determination regarding future expenses.
