Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 197220; Unpublished
Judges O'Connell, MacKenzie, and Gage; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses: Incurred Expense Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Necessity Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Charge Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals vacated a grant of summary disposition concerning certain claimed allowable expenses under §3107, and remanded the matter for further action by the trial court with instructions that the court consider whether each expense submitted by plaintiff was supported by evidence that it actually had been incurred, was medically necessary, and that the charge was reasonable.
The opinion was not clear concerning the precise nature of benefits claimed, except that they included the expense of plaintiff s apartment. The Court of Appeals found that the circuit court had failed to address the separate elements of proof of an allowable expense as required in Nasser v Auto Club Insurance Association, 435 Mich 33, 50 (1990) [Item No. 1358], in which the court held that an insured asserting entitlement to an incurred allowable expense under the no-fault act has the burden of demonstrating (1) that an expense has been incurred, (2) that the expense is reasonably necessary to the insured's care, recovery, or rehabilitation, and (3) that the charge is reasonable.
