Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #316640; Unpublished
Judges Boonstra, Markey, and K.F. Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Self-Employed Persons [§3107(1)(b)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion involving a plaintiff’s claim for wage loss benefits, the Court of Appeals held:
1) the trial court properly denied Allstate’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV), remittitur, or new trial because there was insufficient evidence that plaintiff had made any material misrepresentations, and
2) the trial court properly awarded plaintiff penalty attorney fees under MCL 500.3148 because Allstate unreasonably refused to pay plaintiff’s claim.
Plaintiff, a self-employed carpenter, was injured in an auto accident. Defendant Allstate was plaintiff’s insurer and initially paid his medical expenses, as well as wage loss benefits. Allstate then stopped making payments, asserting that plaintiff was being paid wages as a contractor, while at the same time receiving wage loss benefits from Allstate. Plaintiff filed this action seeking benefits. After trial, a jury rendered a verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $8,132 in wage loss, and more than $2,800 in penalty interest. The trial court then denied Allstate’s motion for JNOV, remittitur, or new trial, and also awarded plaintiff $25,000 in penalty attorney fees under §3148, finding that Allstate had unreasonably refused to pay benefits. On appeal, Allstate argued the trial court improperly denied its post-trial motions.
Allstate’s JNOV, Remittitur & New Trial Motion
The Court of Appeals disagreed with Allstate’s argument, finding there was insufficient evidence that it had “overpaid” plaintiff, or that plaintiff had made misrepresentations.
In this regard, the Court of Appeals pointed out that accountants for both sides agreed that $3,924 a month represented a fair estimate of plaintiff’s lost wages. The court said:
“We conclude that the trial court did not err in denying defendant’s motion for JNOV and did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for new trial or remittitur because the jury’s verdict in this case was within the range supported by the evidence. … Our review of the record reveals no evidence of specific wage payments to plaintiff during the period of disability to support defendant’s claimed offset. … The W-2 information does not establish that plaintiff actually received wages in the months he was under disability …. Consequently, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, there was sufficient evidence to submit the case to the jury and the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for JNOV. … Similarly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiff, the jury’s award was ‘within the range of the evidence and within the limits of what reasonable minds would deem just compensation, [and] should not be disturbed.’ … Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion denying defendant’s motion for new trial or remittitur. … For the same reasons, defendant’s claim to judgment as a matter of law on a theory of unjust enrichment has no merit.”
Attorney Fees
Regarding attorney fees, the Court of Appeals rejected the argument that Allstate had reasonably refused to pay plaintiff’s claim. The court said:
“We conclude that the trial court did not err as matter of law by ruling that defendant did not deny and refuse to pay no-fault benefits on the basis of a bona fide factual dispute. Further, we find that the trial court did not clearly err by determining that defendant’s refusal and delay in paying benefits was unreasonable. … As to the latter, the trial court had the benefit of not only the jury’s determination but also its own assessment regarding the evidence presented at trial, which would include the credibility of the witnesses. See MCR 2.613(C) (providing that in assessing whether a trial court’s finding is clearly erroneous ‘regard shall be given to the special opportunity to the special opportunity of the trial court to judge the credibility of the witnesses who appeared before it’). This Court is not left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made.”
Plaintiff’s Cross-Appeal
The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff's cross-appeal. Plaintiff claimed that, under MCL 500.3107(1)(b), he lost business contracts during the period he was unable to work, and therefore he lost income even after he was capable of working. Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to wage loss benefits for the period after he could work but had not yet acquired new contracts.
Regarding this argument, the Court of Appeals said:
“Plaintiff asserts such a causal link only on the basis that the business was more profitable before the accident. This is a ‘common logical fallacy known, in the realm of causation theory, as “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (“after this, therefore because of this”).’ … Showing only a temporal relationship is generally insufficient to present a fact issue on a necessary causal link between plaintiff’s accidental injury and loss of business profitability. … Consequently, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting defendant partial directed verdict limiting the timeframe of plaintiff’s work loss claim.”
