Kalamazoo County Circuit Court; Docket No. B 792-00-164 CZ; Unpublished
Judge John E. Fitzgerald; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Handicapper Motor Vehicles [§3107(1)(a)]
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
12% Interest Penalty on Overdue Benefits – Nature And Scope [§3142(2), (3)]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion dealing with a suit for first party benefits, Judge John E. Fitzgerald held as follows:
First, under §3114(1) an insurance carrier is liable to pay benefits to a named insured or any relative residing in the same household. Thus, where the plaintiff in this case did not have a no-fault policy of her own and was entitled to PIP benefits from her spouse's insurer, the insurer was obligated to pay those benefits without any recoupment from any other carrier.
Second, where plaintiff commenced her action for no-fault benefits within one year of the date of the accident, the limitation period set forth in §3145 was tolled when the suit was commenced for purposes of submitting medical bills.
Third, Judge Fitzgerald ruled that under the provisions of §3107(a) defendant, DAIIE, was liable to plaintiff for the entire cost of a van which was purchased because of plaintiff s physical condition as well as the cost of additional modifications made to the van. Defendant not only objected to the cost of the van, but also objected to the cost of various "extra options" which the van contained which were allegedly not related to the plaintiff’s condition. Judge Fitzgerald noted, "DAIIE was apparently afforded an opportunity to participate in the selection process (van) but apparently declined. There is no allegation that the items with which the van came equipped were installed at the special request of plaintiff but rather it appears that said items came as either standard equipment or already installed options."
Fourth, it was held that plaintiff was entitled to recover 12 percent interest pursuant to the terms of §3142 of the Act inasmuch as defendant did not claim that they were not provided with reasonable proof of the claimed benefits and more than 30 days have elapsed since submission of same.
Finally, the Court declined to award attorney fees under §3148(1) on the basis that there was not an unreasonable refusal to pay benefits based upon the set of stipulated facts presented to the Court.
