Macomb County Circuit Court; Docket No. 80-6087-AV; Unpublished
Judge Kenneth N. Sanborn; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature of Survivor’s Loss Benefits [§3108(1)]
Calculation of Survivor’s Loss Benefits and Maximums [§3108(1)]
Dependents [§3108(1)]
Reasonable Proof Standard [§3142(1)]
Requirement that Benefits Were Overdue [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This case involves an appeal from the 37th District Court primarily regarding the question of replacement service expenses under §3108 of the statute. In a written opinion, Macomb County Circuit Judge Kenneth Sanborn held that such expenses must be "incurred" by the dependents of a decedent before a no-fault insurer has an obligation to pay them.
Judge Sanborn reversed a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for certain replacement services on the basis that plaintiff had failed to present adequate proof that the expenses had been incurred. Judge Sanborn stated, "So far as the plaintiff was allowed to testify concerning ledger entries and so far as the verdict or the value of replacement services actually exceeds the amount of expenditures proven by checks, bills, receipts, invoices, etc., actually admitted into evidence, the same is reversibly erroneous."
Judge Sanborn also ruled that replacement services that are "performed by one dependent on behalf of another dependent" are not properly chargeable to the insurer. The Court stated, "In such instances where persons under one roof perform services for one another in furtherance of the common goal of maintaining the household, the act of the working dependent benefits all dependents, including the actor." Judge Sanborn wrote that "a more liberal viewpoint" would encourage collusive suits as family members "could endlessly concoct instances of replacement services out of what would be nothing more than routine household chores."
Finally, Judge Sandborn held that due to the fact that plaintiff did not provide factual verification of the replacement service expenses in dispute prior to the first day of trial, no interest or attorney fees were recoverable under §3142 and §3148 of the Act.
[Author's Comment: To the extent this opinion suggests that replacement services cannot be performed by relatives, it is inconsistent with prior decisions of the Court of Appeals. However, to the extent the decision is based on the concept that such expenses must be "incurred" and they must be performed for the benefit of the injured person or dependents ofthat person, it is consistent with developing law.]
