Genesee County Circuit Court; Docket No. 76-41076-NM; Unpublished
Judge Robert Ransom: Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(c)]
Calculation of Survivor’s Loss Benefits And Maximums [§3108(1)]
Dependents [§3108(1)]
12% Interest Penalty on Overdue Benefits – Nature and Scope [§3142(2), (3)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
Calculating Attorney Fees Based on Contingent Fee [§3148]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a written Opinion containing numerous findings of fact, Judge Ransom, after a bench trial, ruled among other things that:
(a) Plaintiff-widower was entitled under §3108 to receive $20 a day in replacement service benefits which he incurred with his mother and mother-in-law for the care of his young daughter following the death of his wife, up to the time of plaintiff’s remarriage. The fact that these services were provided by relatives who would have provided them without charge is of no consequence in that they were services that the relatives had no legal obligation to provide;
(b) Plaintiff-widower was not allowed to recover replacement service expenses for replacement services rendered to his young daughter by his new wife inasmuch as the plaintiff's remarriage assumed all of the respective duties implicit in marriage, including the understanding that each spouse would serve in the role of parents for the other's children. Upon remarriage a family unit was reestablished and there were no replacement services "ordinary and necessary" which were incurred because of the death of the plaintiff’s first wife. However, the Court noted that remarriage will not, in every case, preclude recovery for replacement services of a deceased spouse;
(c) Plaintiff-widower was entitled under §53107(b) to recover replacement service expenses for services and care provided to him during his own recovery period by his mother and mother-in-law, excluding room and board, which the Court valued at $10 per day;
(d) The plaintiff’s coordinated benefits provisions in his no-fault policy were deemed valid in that the proof demonstrated that plaintiff had some semblance of understanding when the policy was taken out and his deceased wife was empowered to act on his behalf when she authorized those amendments to the policy;
(e) The plaintiff was entitled to twelve percent interest per annum on those expenses which the insurance company had reasonable proof (§3142);
(f) The plaintiff was entitled to a one third attorney fee on the gross amount recovered by him which the insurance company had unreasonably refused to pay (§3148).
