Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #315119; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Saad, and Donofrio; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Attendant Care [§3107(1)(a)]
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(c)]
Recoupment of PIP Benefits from Uninsured Vehicle Owners or Registrants [§3177]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving which party was entitled to an arbitration panel’s award of PIP benefits under MCL 500.3107(1), the Court of Appeals held the trial court properly refused to modify an arbitration award in plaintiff insured’s favor because defendant insurer failed to establish any of the necessary grounds for modifying the award, including that the arbitration award was “miscalculated” or “flawed.”
Plaintiff suffered a brain injury in an accident that involved her husband’s uninsured vehicle. Plaintiff’s no-fault claim was assigned to defendant, Titan Insurance. Plaintiff filed an action, claiming that defendant was not timely paying PIP benefits. An arbitration panel awarded plaintiff $48,000 in medical expenses; $5,000 in replacement services; $80,500 in attendant-care services provided by plaintiff’s husband, Eddie Rodriguez; and $3,500 in probate fees. Defendant argued it should have been allowed to offset the replacement and attendant-care services payments because: 1) it had a statutory right to seek full reimbursement from Rodriguez based on the uninsured status of his vehicle; 2) Rodriguez was entitled to the payments because he provided the services to plaintiff; and 3) defendant would ultimately be entitled to receive any payments that it issued Rodriguez. Plaintiff claimed that she, not Rodriguez, was entitled to the full arbitration award because she was the injured party. The trial court held that plaintiff was entitled to the benefits.
Affirming the trial court’s ruling, the Court of Appeals explained an arbitration award can only be modified if:
“(1) the arbitrator made an obvious miscalculation or mistake as to the persons or property described in the award; (2) the award pertained to a matter that was not presented to the arbitrator and the award modification would not affect the merits of the arbitrator’s decisions on the issues presented; or (3) the form of the award was flawed, but the flaw did not affect the merits of the case.”
In this case, defendant did not demonstrate the arbitration panel “miscalculated or mistook” the persons or property involved in making the award, the Court of Appeals said. The court stated:
“The form of the arbitration award does not appear to be flawed or inadequate. … The arbitration panel did not exceed the scope of its authority by deciding that plaintiff was entitled to the disputed PIP benefits. … Defendant has not established that the arbitrators’ conclusion was an obvious, substantial legal error that was made in manifest disregard of the law.”
Therefore, the Court of Appeals said it was clear the arbitration panel awarded PIP benefits to plaintiff, and not to Rodriguez or defendant:
“The arbitrators could have declared that they were only deciding the amounts of damages subject to disbursement, or were withholding decision on certain questions, but they did not do so. Instead, the panel specifically stated that it was giving a unanimous award and named plaintiff.”
Nor did defendant show that the arbitration award was subject to being vacated under MCR 3.602(J)(2), or subject to modification or correction under MCR 3.602(K)(2), the Court of Appeals said. Thus, the trial court lacked the authority to modify the award.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals held the trial court did not err by confirming the arbitration award granting all PIP benefits to plaintiff.
