Jackson County Circuit Court; Docket No. 78-015288; Unpublished
Judge James G. Fleming
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Handicapper Motor Vehicles [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses for Home Accommodations [§3107(1)(a)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a written Opinion regarding a case of first impression dealing with the extent of a no-fault carrier's obligation to provide for an injured person's "accommodations" under §3107(a), Judge Fleming made several significant rulings. The case involved a young man who was rendered a quadriplegic when he was struck by an automobile while operating a motorcycle. Judge Fleming ruled:
1. That the no-fault carrier was not required to purchase the plaintiff the new home that plaintiff had agreed to buy which home was more conducive to plaintiff’s physical condition. However, the carrier was required to pay for any renovations and improvements in the new home which have been made or will be made which are necessary by virtue of the plaintiff’s quadriplegic condition. These renovations are "accommodations" within the language of §3107(a) and then-value is recoverable by the plaintiff. The values are to be determined by a qualified appraiser and submitted to the Court In so holding, the Court reasoned mat in dealing with services and accommodations under §3107(a) it is necessary to segregate expenses into those which are normal living expenses, and thus not related to an auto accident, and those which are injury-or-loss-related, and thus are compensable with no-fault benefits.
2. The no-fault carrier was responsible for the purchase price of a new van motor vehicle which was purchased by the plaintiff, inasmuch as a van is clearly better suited to the plaintiff’s condition than any other means of vehicular transportation.
3. The plaintiff was not entitled to collect attorney fees under §3148 inasmuch as the record was devoid of any evidence of arbitrariness or undue delay. In addition, the case involved matters of first impression and thus defendant's conduct was not unreasonable.
