Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 298922; Unpublished
Judges Servitto, Markey, and Kelly; 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:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
Pursuant to the Michigan Supreme Court’s Order dated December 5, 2012, the Judgment of the Court of Appeals dated September 27, 2011 was vacated and this case was remanded for reconsideration in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v Recca and Douglas v Allstate Ins Co.
On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s judgment awarding no-fault benefits for expenses related to services performed by the injured party’s conservator that included promoting the injured party’s interest in connection with real estate disputes, debt disputes, and no-fault insurance benefits. Despite the fact the injured party would not have needed a conservator if he was not injured in the subject motor vehicle accident, the Court of Appeals determined that under the Michigan Supreme Court’s analysis in Johnson v Recca and Douglas v Allstate Ins Co, the services constituted replacement services as opposed to allowable expense benefits. The Court of Appeals explained that its holding was based upon the Michigan Supreme Court’s analysis in Douglas v Allstate Ins Co and Johnson v Recca. Specifically, the court reasoned that the services performed by the injured person’s conservator “were not services directed at the injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.” In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated:
“The conservator’s activities at issue here are replacement costs, not allowable expenses. The services for which petitioner sought compensation—promoting Cisneros’s interests in connection with real estate disputes, debt disputes, and no-fault insurance benefits—were of a sort that Cisneros would have provided for herself ‘but for’ the limitations that resulted from her injuries. They were not services directed at Cismeros’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation as explained by Johnson and Recca.”
