Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 147186; Unpublished
Judges Reilly, Sawyer, and Clulo; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Insurer’s Right to Penalty Attorney Fees for Fraudulent / Excessive Claims [§3148(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision involving first-party coverage, the Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court's order denying defendant's motion for attorney fees filed after a verdict of no cause of action in favor of defendant had entered.
Plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendant had failed to pay benefits for allowable expenses, wage loss and replacement services resulting from an auto accident related injuries. Seven months prior to trial, plaintiff withdrew her claim for replacement services benefits. The case continued to trial on the issues relating to allowable expenses and wage loss, with the jury returning a verdict of no cause of action.
Subsequent to the verdict, defendant filed a motion for costs and attorney fees under the Michigan Court Rules, Revised Judicature Act and §3148(2) of the no-fault act. In support, defendant alleged that plaintiff’s claim for replacement services was fraudulent. Plaintiff had claimed replacement service benefits were owing for services performed by plaintiffs husband. However, during that same time period, plaintiff had submitted a claim for replacement services that she performed for her son who had been injured in an earlier automobile accident. The court granted defendant's motion for costs but denied the motion for attorney fees. The defendant insurer appealed the denial of attorney fees under §3148(2).
The Court of Appeals held that the award of attorney fees under §3148(2) is discretionary with the trial court. Plaintiff explained at trial that the services provided to the son were performed by her husband and not her, and further, that she did not believe it made a difference whether she or her husband was listed as the person providing the services. Based upon this testimony, the trial court concluded that plaintiff did not intend to deceive the insurance company. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court's denial of attorney fees was not an abuse of discretion.
