Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 212683; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Murphy, and Sullivan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Allowable Expenses for Conservatorships and Guardianships [§3107(1)(a)]
Allowable Expenses: Reasonable Necessity Requirement [§3107(1)(a)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that legal expenses incurred to defend a custody dispute between the injured person and her child's biological father were too attenuated to be considered a service related to the care, recovery or rehabilitation of the injured person, and therefore did not satisfy the requirement of section 3107(l)(a) that such expenses be "reasonably necessary" for an injured person's care, recovery or rehabilitation.
June Berger was injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1977 and sustained a closed head injury requiring appointment of a conservator. In 1992, Berger gave birth to a child whose alleged biological father, in 1995, filed a petition seeking custody of the then 3-year old child. Prince, as Berger's conservator, hired an attorney to represent Berger in the custody matter and incurred legal fees in the defense of that action. Prince then sought an order from the probate court requiring State Farm to reimburse Berger for the past and future legal fees related to her defense of the child custody dispute. Prince argued that these legal fees were related to Berger's "care, recovery or rehabilitation" because the child custody dispute arose only as a result of Berger's mental and physical injuries sustained in the automobile accident. State Farm argued that under section 3107(l)(a), such legal fees incurred defending a child custody matter are not reasonably necessary charges incurred for an injured person's care, recovery or rehabilitation and were therefore not recoverable.
On appeal from the trial court's order requiring State Farm to pay the fees, the Court of Appeals reversed and held that the fees were not recoverable. The Court of Appeals analyzed this case in light of its previous decision in Heinz v Auto Club Insurance Association, 214 Mich App 195 (1995) [Item No. 1827], which had held that the fees of a guardian or conservator were allowable expenses under 3107(l)(a) where the appointment of a guardian or conservator was necessitated by the incapacitating injuries received in the automobile accident. In Heinz, supra, the Court of Appeals found that the "No-Fault Act is not limited strictly to the payment of medical expenses" and held that services performed by a guardian and conservator were allowable expenses under section 3107. Other cases when interpreting section 3107 have held that it contemplates "more than mere medical services" and in fact has allowed a broad range of services to be compensated under section 3107.
However, the Court of Appeals distinguished Heinz, supra, from the instant case as follows:
“In each of the above cases, the services and accommodations found by this Court to constitute allowable expenses directly concerned the care of an injured person and related to that person's ability to cope with day-to-day life. In contrast, the service for which coverage is requested in the instant case relates more closely to the care of a third person, Berger's minor child."
The court held that the Legislature did not contemplate that section 3107 would impose liability on the insurer for the cost of defending any and all legal actions arising after an accident. Because the legal representation at issue in this case did not relate directly to Berger's care, the court held that it was not an allowable expense under 3107. The court held that the defense of this custody proceeding, initiated 18 years after the accident which resulted in Berger's injuries, was "too attenuated to be considered a service related to her care, recovery or rehabilitation."
