Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 51813; Published
Judges Cynar, Kelly, and Riley; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 114 Mich App 171; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Extra Contractual / Mental Anguish Damages
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion, the Court of Appeals rendered two holdings. The first involved an issue of first impression regarding the obligation of a no-fault insurer to pay for "services" pursuant to the allowable expense provisions of §3107(a) of the statute. The Court held that a relative who provided in-home nursing care to a disabled auto accident victim was entitled to be compensated for the reasonable value of her services pursuant to §3107(a), even though the relative had no medical training. The person providing the services in this case was the injured person's stepmother. The injured stepson was 31 years-old and had been rendered an invalid in an automobile accident. The stepmother was required to serve his meals in bed, bathe him, escort him to the doctor's office, exercise him in conformity with his doctor's instructions, assist in formulating his diet, administer medication and assist him with speech and association therapy. The Court noted that the stepmother was under no legal duty to perform any services on behalf of her stepson. The Court also noted that §3107(a) does not require that the services be supplied by "trained medical personnel" as was contended by defendant. The Court stated, "If we were to accept defendant's reading of §3107(a), we would penalize both the injured insured and his family for providing care which would otherwise be performed by a less personalized health care industry."
In the second issue, the Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment regarding plaintiff’s claim that the breach of the no-fault contract entitled plaintiff to recover damages for mental and emotional distress. The Court noted that the cases of Liddell v DAIIE (item number 380) and Jerome v Michigan Mutual (item number 358) held that no-fault contracts are not contracts involving mental concern-and solicitude. Therefore, damages for mental anguish for the breach of such a contract are not recoverable. Furthermore, the Court held that the plaintiff had not pled a cause of action grounded in fraud because the plaintiff had failed to allege that cause of action with specificity and had also failed to allege reliance on the defendant’s so-called fraudulent representations regarding whether the contract involved a coordinated benefits provision.
