 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Williams v. AAA Michigan3/5/2002
FOR PUBLICATION
This case joins the legion of published opinions that interpret Michigan's no fault act because it involves yet another, novel factual wrinkle to which neither this Court nor the Michigan Supreme Court previously has applied the law. This Court granted defendant's delayed application for leave to appeal to resolve the primary question in whom should rest legal title to modified living quarters that defendant prepared to accommodate plaintiff's medical condition. Defendant challenges the trial court's partial summary disposition order that awarded plaintiff title to the specialized accommodations and the court's award of no fault penalty interest to plaintiff. Plaintiff cross appeals the trial court's limitation of his receipt of uncoordinated personal injury protection (PIP) benefits. We affirm.
I.
Plaintiff is a retired employee of the United States Post Office. In June 1996, plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused him very serious injuries, including quadriplegia. At the time of the accident, defendant was plaintiff's insurer under the no fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. On June 9, 1997, plaintiff filed the instant suit alleging that defendant unreasonably refused to pay plaintiff all PIP benefits that it owed him.
At the time of his accident, plaintiff owned a split level house near Greenville, Michigan. Plaintiff did not return to his house after the accident, however, because of his restriction to a wheelchair and limited ability to control his upper extremities. Plaintiff spent months recovering in hospitals in Grand Rapids after the accident, then entered a long term care program in which he spent approximately one year. At the time of trial he resided in a Grand Rapids area apartment. Plaintiff expressed to defendant his desire to return to his house.
On June 1, 1998, the parties stipulated defendant would evaluate plaintiff's housing needs and "submit a proposal to the Plaintiff for his review and approval providing for either the modification of his existing residence in Greenville, Michigan, or the purchase or construction or an appropriate . . . residence in Greenville area." A home remodeling company estimated that to renovate plaintiff's house to accommodate his medical conditions would cost approximately $178,000. In light of this estimate, defendant declined to renovate plaintiff's house, instead suggesting that it would rather purchase and renovate a ranch style house.
On January 7, 1999, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(9) [no valid defense] and (10) [no issue of material fact] seeking resolution of a dispute regarding whether plaintiff or defendant should retain title of whatever house defendant prepared for plaintiff's use. Plaintiff also sought summary disposition with respect to defendant's reimbursement of certain of plaintiff's medical expenses that Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, plaintiff's health insurer, partially had paid. Regarding the house, plaintiff claimed that the no fault act obligated defendant to provide him reasonable accommodation for his medical conditions, and that to permit defendant to retain title to a house that defendant purchased and renovated would constitute a windfall for defendant because defendant eventually could sell the house, thus profiting from plaintiff's catastrophic injury. Concerning medical expenses, specifically those plaintiff incurred between July 1996 and early 1997 at Mary Free Bed Hospital, plaintiff argued that his policy with defendant required that defendant pay him uncoordinated medical benefits, specifically the full amounts charged for services by Mary Free Bed Hospi
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|