United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Case #04-73787
Honorable Judge Lawrence P. Zatkoff
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Opinion not Available 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Room and Board [3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Causation Requirement [3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this action for no-fault personal injury protection benefits for room, board, and living expenses, Judge Zatkoff determined that where these expenses are no different from expenses the plaintiff would have incurred had she not been injured in a motor vehicle accident, they are not compensable under the No-Fault Act.
The plaintiff in this case sustained a closed head in a 1987 motor vehicle accident. Following the accident, plaintiff was in and out of various hospitals and rehabilitation centers. In 1988, plaintiff was treated as an in-patient at a rehabilitation center in Detroit for which defendant State Farm paid $575 per month. In 1995, plaintiff moved to a rental home near her parents for which she was charged $1,500 per month. State Farm paid $560 per month. In 2003, plaintiff purchased a home for which her monthly mortgage was $3,300. However, plaintiff had a tenant who paid $1,350 per month, leaving plaintiff a $1,500 balance. Defendant continued to pay $560 per month.
Plaintiff filed this action in which she alleged that defendant owed for the unpaid room and board from 1995 to the present. In addition, plaintiff sought reimbursement for amounts paid for utilities, phone service, cellular phone service, internet access, and cleaning from 2003 to the present.
In granting State Farm’s motion for summary judgment, Judge Zatkoff noted that under MCL 500.3105(1) and Griffith v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 472 Mich 521 (2005) [RB #2516], a no-fault insurer has liability to pay for benefits only to the extent the benefits are causally related to the accidental bodily injury arising out of an automobile accident. In this case, Judge Zatkoff found that plaintiff could not show her room and board expenses were any different than those of an uninjured person. Moreover, even if plaintiff’s room and board expenses were compensable, they are not allowable expenses under §3107(1)(a), in that they are related to her care, recovery, or her rehabilitation. Instead, plaintiff’s room and board and living expenses are ordinary costs which she would have incurred, regardless of whether she was injured. In this regard, Judge Zatkoff stated:
“In its opinion, the Griffith Court thoroughly explained . . . that ‘a no-fault insurer is liable to pay benefits only to the extent that the claimed benefits are causally connected to the accidental bodily injury arising out of an automobile accident.’. . . In the present case, and as in Griffith, Plaintiff cannot show that Jennifer’s alleged room and board and other living costs are any different than those of an uninjured person. . . . Plaintiff has not established that any alleged housing or living costs above these amounts were related to Jennifer’s injuries. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requested expenses are not compensable under Griffith because the expenses are not ‘for accidental bodily injury. . . .’ . . . Even if Plaintiff’s requested room and board expenses were compensable under MCL §500.3105, an insurer would be liable for these expenses only if they were also ‘allowable expenses’ under MCL 500.3107(1)(a). . . . That section states that ‘allowable expenses’ are those which are ‘reasonably necessary’ for an injured person’s ‘care, recovery, or rehabilitation.’ . . . In the present case, as in Griffith, Plaintiff has failed to present evidence that Jennifer’s room and board are related to her ‘care, recovery, or rehabilitation.’ Instead, Plaintiff’s scenario is precisely the type envisioned by the Court in Griffith. Jennifer’s room and board and other living costs are ordinary daily costs which she would incur regardless of whether she was injured.”
