 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. Continental Insurance Co.3/12/2002
defendant unreasonably refused to pay medical bills that plaintiff fails to specify on appeal. We disagree.
A trial court's finding of an unreasonable refusal to pay or delay in paying benefits will not be reversed on appeal unless the finding is clearly erroneous. Attard v Citizens Ins Co of America, 237 Mich App 311, 316-317; 602 NW2d 633 (1999). MCL 500.3148(1) provides:
An attorney is entitled to a reasonable fee for advising and representing a claimant in an action for personal or property protection insurance benefits that are overdue. The attorney's fee shall be a charge against the insurer in addition to the benefits recovered, if the court finds that the insurer unreasonably refused to make the claim or unreasonably delayed in making proper payment.
Our Supreme Court has held that "a refusal or delay in payments by an insurer will not be found 'unreasonable' within the meaning of ยง 3148 where the delay is the product of a legitimate question of statutory construction, constitutional law, or even a bona fide factual uncertainty." Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich 51, 66; 404 NW2d 199 (1987).
In the present case, defendant promptly paid plaintiff a total of $52,538 covering wage loss and medical benefits and admitted that it owed plaintiff an additional twenty-three days of wage loss benefits. The jury awarded plaintiff only $3,000 in wage loss benefits, plus interest, presumably to cover the twenty-three day period to which defendant admitted liability.
When defendant's claims specialist was questioned regarding why defendant had not paid the benefit at issue, she explained that she told plaintiff's counsel in a telephone conversation that defendant was in the process of filing its answer to plaintiff's complaint and that defendant would then try to resolve any differences in payments. She testified that the telephone conversation took place when she informed plaintiff's counsel of defendant's decision to terminate the benefits. Furthermore, there is no evidence whatsoever to show that defendant refused to make this payment. Based on the circumstances of this case, defendant did not unreasonably delay or refuse to make that payment.
Regarding the issue of medical expenses, plaintiff failed to specify what medical expenses he raises on appeal. Again, plaintiff may not merely announce his position and leave it to this Court to determine and rationalize the basis for his claim. Wilson, supra at 243; Caldwell, supra at 132-133. Thus, plaintiff has waived the issue.
Finally, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for an award of no-fault penalty interest on overdue benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3142 and on the judgment pursuant to MCL 600.6013. Again, plaintiff does not specify the allegedly overdue payments he asserts and therefore, his claim is not properly presented on appeal and is deemed waived. Wilson, supra at 243; Caldwell, supra at 132-133.
Affirmed.
Jessica R. Cooper
Richard Allen Griffin
Henry William Saad
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|