Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 152975; Unpublished
Judges Holbrook, Jr., Murphy, and Kingsley; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Handicapper Motor Vehicles [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Necessity Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
Conduct Establishing Unreasonable Delay or Denial [§3148]
Bona Fide Factual Uncertainty / Statutory Construction Defense [§3148]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed a jury verdict and held that, as a matter of law, plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for the cost of a minivan as an allowable expense under §3107(1)(a) and that the trial court abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion for a directed verdict on the issue.
Both of plaintiffs treating physicians testified at trial that a van was medically necessary and served important rehabilitative purposes that could not be achieved in any other manner. Due to plaintiffs medical limitations, including limited motor skills, bladder and bowel incontinence, and osteopenia (softening of the bones), the court held that a minivan was reasonably necessary to accommodate those conditions. Defendant's only witness at trial was a claims representative who testified that the van was not a reasonable and necessary expense.
The Court of Appeals held in plaintiffs favor and ruled that plaintiff had offered "unrefuted evidence of reasonableness and necessity." Under the circumstances, although the question of whether an expense is reasonably necessary is generally one of fact for the jury, it may in some cases be decided by the court as a matter of law. Nasser vAuto Club Insurance Association, 435 Mich 33 (1990).
The Court of Appeals also held that the trial court erred in denying plaintiffs motion for actual attorney fees under §3148. In light of its ruling that plaintiff was entitled to the expense of the minivan as a matter of law, the court concluded that the trial court's finding of a "legitimate question" was clearly erroneous. The court noted that the defendant's claims file contained an internal report in which defendant's employees had recommended the purchase of the van.
