Muskegon County Circuit Court; Docket No. 80-14427-CK; Unpublished
Judge James M. Graves, Jr.; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses for Home Accommodations [§3107(1)(a)]
12% Interest Penalty on Overdue Benefits – Nature And Scope [§3142(2), (3)]
Interest Penalty Additive to Judgment Interest [§3142]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations For Minors [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Submission of Claim [§3145]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
Bona Fide Factual Uncertainty / Statutory Construction Defense [§3148]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Civil Judgments and Interest (MCL 600.6013)
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations (MCL 600.5851 – 600.5856)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this lengthy written Opinion, Judge Graves made several significant rulings regarding the obligation of a no-fault insurer to pay "allowable expenses" under §3107(a) of the No-Fault Act for the benefit of a nine year old quadriplegic. The Court ruled:
1. Where the parents of the injured girl provided extensive nursing services and other services related to the care, recovery and rehabilitation of their injured daughter, they were entitled to be compensated for the reasonable value of the services rendered. In this particular case, the parents of the injured child performed services for the benefit of their injured daughter which included such things as bowel and bladder care, bed baths, assisting with special exercises, administering medications, physical therapy for muscle spasms, frequent position changes to avoid bedsores and transportation services to doctors and hospitals. Judge Graves rejected the argument that the parents were "legally obligated" to provide such extraordinary health care services without compensation. The injured child in this case would have been entitled to professional in-home nursing care for these services. The fact that such services were provided by the child's parents does not render them "gratuitous." Therefore, the child was permitted to recover the reasonable value of services rendered by her parents at the hourly rate requested by plaintiff-- $4 per hour. The record reflected that the parents provided approximately 8,000 hours of service over a five year period, thus entitling the child to recover approximately $32,000 from the no-fault carrier to reimburse these services.
2. Judge Graves held that the services provided by the child's parents were services that were rendered for the benefit of the injured daughter. Therefore, the claim for reimbursement of these services belongs to the child. Under the holding in Rawlins v Aetna (item number 230) the one year statute of limitations provisions of the No-Fault Act are tolled in those cases involving claims for no-fault benefits by minor children. Therefore, plaintiff was entitled to reimbursement for these services even though they had been rendered more than one year prior to the filing of the lawsuit The Court did note, however, that for purposes of the "tolling rule" set forth in Richards v American Fellowship (item number 101), an insurance company did not have to provide a written formal denial.
3. Pursuant to the ruling in Wood v DAIIE (item number 343) the plaintiff was entitled to recover 12 percent interest in these overdue benefits pursuant to §3142 of the No-Fault Act and could also recover 12 percent interest under the RJA interest statute.
4. In addition to awarding plaintiff the value of the services rendered by the parents, the Court also held that the insurance company was liable for a portion of the construction costs of a swimming pool which was installed on the family property to assist the injured child in exercise and rehabilitation therapy. The total cost of the pool was not recoverable, however, inasmuch as part of its cost would enhance the value of the family home.
5. The Court found that there were "legitimate factual questions" regarding the obligation of the no-fault carrier to pay the benefits in question, and, as such, the refusal to pay was not unreasonable" under §3148 of the Act. Therefore, no attorney fees were ordered.
