Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 298727; Unpublished
Judges Shapiro, Saad, and Beckering; Unanimous; per curiam (after remand)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion Not Available 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
12% Interest Penalty on Overdue Benefits – Nature and Scope [§3142(2) (3)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
Presumption of Unreasonableness
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, after remand from a previous appeal in which the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s previous award of attorney fees and remanded for clarification, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s order for attorney fees pursuant to MCL 500.3148.
This case was tried to a jury verdict on the plaintiff’s claim for unpaid allowable expenses including $27,000.00 in chiropractic bills. The jury awarded the plaintiff $11,755.00 of overdue PIP benefits together with penalty and interest. Following the verdict, the plaintiff requested the trial court to award no fault attorney fees under MCL 500.3148 which the trial court granted. In the first decision from the Court of Appeals, the court stated that it was unclear as to whether the trial court was awarding fees because the insurer could not reasonably rely on the report of its experts, or because the refusal or delay in payment occurred more than 30 days before the receipt of these reports. The matter was remanded and on remand the trial court specifically found that the bills had been submitted to defendant before May 31, 2007 and that the refusal or delay in payment occurred more than 30 days before defendant received its expert reports. Therefore, attorney fees were awarded on remand pursuant to MCL 500.3148(1).
In affirming the trial court, the Court of Appeals stated that PIP benefits are overdue if not paid within 30 days after an insurer receives reasonable proof of the fact and the amount of the loss, and a “rebuttable presumption” of unreasonable refusal or delay arises when benefits are not paid within the statutory period. In this case, testimony supported the inference that bills for the plaintiff’s treatment were sent weekly to the defendant. Further, the defendant admitted knowing that the plaintiff was continuing treatment and admitted a conversation in May 2007 with the doctor’s office about the bills. There was also evidence that an auditing company employed by the defendant to review medical bills had contacted the doctor’s office and acknowledged receipt of the bill. While the testimony at trial failed to establish a specific date for the telephone conversation, the trial court’s conclusion that the conversation occurred before May 31, 2007 was not clear error. Therefore the award of attorney fees was affirmed, there being no abuse of discretion.
