Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #263406; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Murray, and Donofrio; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict awarding plaintiffs $51,695 for underpaid attendant care benefits and a trial court award denying plaintiffs’ motion for attorney fees, finding there was a bona fide disagreement regarding the payment amount.
On appeal, the plaintiffs first argued that the trial court improperly dismissed the breach of contract claim brought by the injured person. The Court of Appeals disagreed and noted that the injured person did not pay plaintiffs a higher rate and then seek the difference from defendant State Farm. Rather, plaintiffs challenged the rate at which they were paid by State Farm. Therefore, the injured person’s claim was duplicative and properly dismissed.
The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s decision in which it denied plaintiffs’ request for attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1) for failure to make proper payment. Plaintiffs alleged they had been underpaid since the mid-1970s. Defendant properly argued that plaintiffs’ claim was untimely. Moreover, although plaintiffs presented admissions by defendant’s representatives that they were grossly underpaid, defendant presented incidents that there was a disagreement among staff members regarding the appropriate rate that was supported by evidence regarding the rates charged by comparable adult foster care facilities. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err when it denied plaintiffs’ request for statutory attorney fees. In this regard, the court stated:
“In the present case, legitimate questions of statutory construction were presented. Plaintiffs raised the issue of reasonableness retroactive to the commencement of payment in the mid-1970s when defendant had been paying for attendant care services for years. Defendant was entitled to raise the question of statutory interpretation regarding the timeliness of the claim. Further, while plaintiffs asserted that it had admissions from defendant’s representative that the amount plaintiffs received was a gross underpayment, other evidence from defendant indicated that there was a disagreement among staff that was supported by comparable adult foster care facilities. Under the circumstances, there was a bona fide factual dispute regarding the reasonableness of payment amounts. Therefore, the trial court did not clearly err by denying plaintiffs’ request for statutory attorney fees.”
The Court of Appeals further affirmed the trial court’s refusal to award defendant the full amount of attorney fees it requested as a mediation sanction. In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that the parties were repeatedly before the trial court on numerous motions and engaged in extensive gamesmanship. It also noted that although MCR 2.403(O)(6) provides for an award of reasonable attorney fees, defendant failed to support the amount requested with an itemization of costs. In this regard, the court stated:
“The parties were repeatedly before the trial court for hearings on discovery matters, and orders compelling defendant to produce were entered. Additionally, the parties did engage in extensive gamesmanship. . . . The lack of a specific itemization was also troubling. Furthermore, case law provides that defendant is entitled to costs plus a reasonable attorney fee; defendant is not entitled to the actual amount of attorney fees requested. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not abuse its discretion.”
(emphasis in original)
