Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 212961; Unpublished
Judges Hood, Sawyer, and Cavanagh; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Conservatorships and Guardianships [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals refused to reverse its decision in Heinz v Auto Club Insurance Association, 214 Mich App 195 (1995) [Item No. 1827], which held that the expenses of appointing and maintaining a guardian/conservator for catastrophically injured auto victims is compensable as an allowable expense under section 3107(l)(a).
The court held that the Heinz case was well-reasoned and therefore, when defendant ACIA refused to pay those expenses which were routinely incurred in the guardianship/conservatorship proceedings, defendant was guilty of an unreasonable refusal to pay benefits, and thus liable for attorney fees under section 3148 of the statute.
However, the Court of Appeals held that the Heinz, supra, decision did not obligate a no-fault insurance company to pay guardianship expenses that were incurred due to family discord and disagreement regarding the appointment of guardians.
In so holding, the court stated:
"We are confident that the Legislature did not envision that family disputes regarding appointment of guardians would be included as expenses payable by the no-fault system. It is unlikely that the Legislature imagined that at a time of crisis, family members would not put aside their personal differences and unite for the benefit of an injured or incapacitated family member. Furthermore, family members would have no incentive to compromise for the benefit of the injured person where expenses incurred in personal disputes are not taken from the injured's estate, but rather, are subsidized by the insurance system."
