Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 124153; Unpublished
Judges Wahls, Hood, and Cavanagh; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
12% Interest Penalty on Overdue Benefits – Nature and Scope [§3142(2), (3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Evidentiary Issues
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals rendered two holdings dealing with the trial of first party cases. First, the court held that the trial court did not err in allowing an accountant to testify for plaintiff regarding the amount of interest on no-fault benefits plaintiff claimed were overdue. With regard to this issue, the court stated:
"Here the witness testified as to the accumulated interest, calculated at 12% as provided in SJI 2d 35.04, from the time defendant stopped payments through the time of trial. The witness testified as to weekly benefit periods using amounts based on the testimony of a provider of similar services. The calculations also allowed for the statutory 30-day grace period as to each week a benefit payment was due. Further, the witness prepared exists which summarized the calculations regarding the time periods involved and the benefit rates plaintiff claimed. Upon review, we agree with the trial court's determination that the testimony was admissible as an illustration of the interest calculations which were an element of plaintiff’s claim for damages."
Second, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court to instruct the jury on a modified version of SJI 2d 50.10, entitled "Defendant Takes the Plaintiff as He Finds Her." The court rejected the argument that this instruction is applicable only to negligence cases. In this case, the trial judge omitted any reference to negligence. Moreover, the instruction as relevant in light of the fact that "one of the defenses to plaintiff’s claim was that plaintiff’s need for 24-hour attendant care resulted from her advanced age. Plaintiff’s theory was that although her recovery may have been hindered by her age, her infirmities were not due solely to her advanced age. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in giving the modified version of SJI 2d 50.10 to the jury during the instructional phase of the trial."
