Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 131247; Published
Judges Holbrook, Murphy, and D. A. Roberson; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 198 Mich App 435; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Charge Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion, the Court of Appeals interpreted the provisions of §3107(a) as allowing family members to be compensated for services they provide at home to an injured person in need of care, including the providing of room and board.
The trial court in this case had denied plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint alleging entitlement to reimbursement for "room and board" as an allowable expense under §3107(a). In reversing and remanding for further proceedings, the Court of Appeals held that room and board is admittedly an "allowable expense" where an insured's injuries require that he reside in an institution, and therefore, the court could see no compelling reason not to afford the same compensation under the act to family members who provide room and board. The court held that the act does not distinguish between accommodations provided by family members and accommodations provided by institutions and the court declined to read such a distinction into the act. Holding that accommodations provided by family members is an "allowable expense" is in accord with the policy of this state. See, Sharp v Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company, 142 Mich App 499 (1985) and Manley v DAIIE, 425 Mich 140 (1986).
Where an injured person is unable to care for himself and would be institutionalized were a family member not willing to provide home care, a no-fault insurer is liable to pay the cost of the maintenance in the home. In light of its ruling, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have allowed the plaintiff to amend the complaint alleging entitlement to such room and board expenses.
The court further stated that it disagreed with the rule stated in the Manley, supra, decision that "expenses that are as necessary for uninjured persons as they are for injured persons are not allowable expenses." Rather, the Court of Appeals agreed with Justice Boyle's dissenting opinion in Manley that the rule is unwieldy and unworkable. "Where a person who normally would require institutional treatment is cared for at home in a quasi-institutional setting made possible by the love and dedication of the injured victim's family, the test for allowable expenses should not differ from that set out in §3107(a)." Manley, supra, at p 169 (Boyle, J. concurring and dissenting). The court held that the injured victim and the victim's family should be able to make the decision regarding where the victim's care occurs, rather than the no-fault insurer. This can be accomplished without placing an unreasonable economic burden on the no-fault insurer. The reasonableness of the expenses incurred may be judged by comparison with rates charged by institutions.
