Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 174556; Published
Judges Doctoroff, Kelly, and Markey; 2-1 (with Judge Kelly Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 216 Mich App 612; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
12% Interest Penalty on Overdue Benefits – Nature and Scope [§3142(2), (3)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Overdue [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Miscellaneous Provisions
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 Opinion by Judge Markey, Judge Kelly concurring in part and dissenting in part, the Court of Appeals held that pre-judgment interest under MCLA 600.6013 was appropriately awarded for PIP benefit claims against State Farm arising before the filing of the complaint and in addition, for such claims arising after the complaint was filed, plaintiff may recover pre-judgment interest from each date that defendant refused to pay those benefits subsequent to the filing of the complaint.
The issue on appeal concerned whether or not plaintiff was entitled to receive pre-judgment interest under MCLA 600.6013 for all PIP benefits which were the subject of the litigation, including such benefits that accrued following the filing of the complaint. The Court of Appeals held that the purpose of the award of pre-judgment interest is to compensate for delayed payment, and consequently, plaintiff was entitled to prejudgment interest from the date that defendant refused to pay bills as they became due after the complaint was filed, not from the date that plaintiff filed his complaint. Plaintiff cannot receive retroactive interest on rehabilitation bills that were neither incurred nor due when the complaint was filed.
The Court of Appeals also held that plaintiff was not entitled to an award of attorney fees under 3148(1), in light of the fact that the jury found that no benefits were overdue and that no-fault penalty interest should not be assessed against defendant under 3142(2). Even though the trial court believed that defendant's denial of benefits was unreasonable, the court believed that where a jury finds that personal protection insurance benefits were not overdue for purposes of 3142, such a conclusion precludes a finding that PIP benefits were overdue for purposes of an award of attorney fees under 3148(1).
