Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 82582; Unpublished
Judges Bronson, Allen, and Cherry; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Calculating Attorney Fees Not Based on Contingent Fee [§3148]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Civil Judgments and Interest (MCL 600.6013)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld an attorney fee award of $7,000 pursuant to §3148(1), and in addition, held that interest awarded pursuant to MCLA 600.6013; MSA 27A.6013, should have been awarded on the attorneys fees commencing with the date that the complaint was filed, as opposed to the date of judgment or the date that the award was granted.
This action was commenced by plaintiff seeking payment of personal protection insurance benefits arising out of an April 6, 1982 automobile accident. Following a jury trial, judgment was entered for plaintiff in the amount of $15,153.49. This judgment was not contested on appeal. Following judgment, plaintiff brought a motion for attorneys fees and after a bench trial at which plaintiff’s counsel appeared as the only witness, the trial court determined that defendant had unreasonably refused to pay benefits, and awarded the $7,000 attorney fee. Defendant appealed claiming abuse of discretion in the award of a fee which constituted 46 percent of the jury verdict. Plaintiff’s counsel testified that he had entered into a one-third contingent fee arrangement with plaintiff, but that he had also spent 108 hours and 25 minutes on the case against defendant. After noting that the award reflected an hourly rate of approximately $65, the Court of Appeals held that the award should be sustained.
Plaintiff cross-appealed alleging that the interest awarded on the attorneys fees should have accrued from the date the complaint was filed, rather than the date of judgment or the date that the attorney fee award was granted. Defendant argued that interest on the award should begin to accrue on the date that the award was granted, since the attorney fee represents expenses incurred after the filing of the complaint. Citing the cases of Wood v DAIIE (Item No. 453) and Liddell v DAIIE (Item No. 486), the Court of Appeals in this case held that §3148(1) of the No-Fault Act and §6013 of RJA required the conclusion that interest awarded on §3148(1) attorneys fees begins accruing as of the date of the filing of the complaint
