Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #313351; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Fitzgerald, and Markey; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Requirement That Benefits Were Overdue [§3148(1)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
Presumption of Unreasonableness [§3148(1)]
Penalty Attorney Fees for Service Providers [§3148(1)][§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving an award of attorney fees under MCL 500.3142 and MCL 500.3148, the Court of Appeals held the trial court, when awarding the fees, improperly relied on the jury’s verdict to conclude that the insurer’s delay in paying PIP benefits was unreasonable, rather than the trial court making its own findings of fact in this regard. As a result, the Court of Appeals said it was unable, based on the record, to review the trial court’s factual findings and unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding fees.
Plaintiff was injured in an accident and sought PIP benefits from defendant, her no-fault insurer. Intervening plaintiff, Therapy First, provided plaintiff physical therapy after the accident. Defendant paid benefits for a portion of plaintiff’s treatment and physical therapy, and denied the remainder of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff filed an action seeking coverage. A jury found plaintiff incurred replacement services and that certain benefit payments were overdue. The jury also found that plaintiff Therapy First incurred allowable expenses and that payment of those expenses was overdue. The trial court awarded plaintiffs attorney fees under §3142 and §3148, concluding that defendant unreasonably delayed payment.
In finding that the trial court erroneously relied on the jury’s verdict when awarding attorney fees, the Court of Appeals said:
“With regard to plaintiff’s motion for attorney fees, the [trial] court consistently referenced the jury’s findings in discussing the reasonableness of defendant’s action. Specifically, the court stated, ‘Although not what the plaintiff requested, the jury did find that there were unpaid costs and fees that ought to have been paid and that there was a delay in making those payments. As pointed out by counsel, that may be construed as being an unreasonable delay in making the payments’ …. Although the court denied, when asked for clarification, that it was finding ‘as a matter of law based on the jury verdict that the benefits were unreasonable or should have been paid,’ the court made no additional findings regarding the reasonableness of defendant’s delay in the payment of benefits. … The court did not make any findings with regard to whether defendant’s delay in making proper payment was reasonable. Rather, the court’s statements suggest that the court did, in fact, rely on the jury’s verdict in finding an unreasonable delay in making proper payment. … On this record, we are unable to review the trial court’s factual findings and unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding plaintiff attorney fees.”
As for plaintiff Therapy First’s award of attorney fees, the Court of Appeals said:
“Again, however, the court referenced the jury’s finding that the benefits were overdue and failed to make specific findings regarding the reasonableness of the delay in paying benefits. On this record, we are unable to review the trial court’s factual findings and unable to determine whether the trial court abused its discretion in awarding Therapy First attorney fees.”
Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed the attorney fee award and remanded the case for further proceedings.
