Admire v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company
494 Mich. 10
| Mich. | 2013Background
- Plaintiff Admire sustained catastrophic injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving a defendant insured; requires wheelchair-accessible transportation.
- Parties repeatedly funded a van and modifications under a Transportation Purchase Agreement (TPA) dating from 1988, with latest 2000 agreement.
- Defendant paid for modifications and medical mileage but refused base price of a new van under the no-fault act and TPA.
- Court of Appeals relied on Griffith and Begin to allow full van cost; district court found the issue ambiguous.
- This Court clarifies MCL 500.3107(1)(a): only costs for care/recovery/rehabilitation are recoverable, excluding ordinary transportation costs.
- Case remanded for summary disposition in defendant’s favor; contract-issue waiver concerns are resolved by vacating the appellate ambiguity ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether base van price is an allowable expense | Admire argues full van cost is recoverable as blended with care. | Auto-Owners contends only modifications are for care; base price is ordinary transport. | Base price not recoverable; only modifications are. |
| Whether modifications and mileage are for care/recovery/rehabilitation | Modifications are necessary for care and enable use of transportation. | Modifications are not ordinary costs and thus should be paid if related to care. | Modifications and medical mileage are recoverable. |
| Whether the Transportation Purchase Agreement was waived or ambiguous | Contractual obligation to reimburse base price could be argued from TPAs. | TPA ambiguity not raised in trial; waiver prevents contract-based recovery. | Waiver issue vacated; remand for disposition on no-fault grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 (2005) (defined care/recovery/rehabilitation under MCL 500.3107(1)(a))
- Begin v Michigan Bell Tel Co, 284 Mich App 581 (2009) (blended vs. integrated expenses interpreted to allow full recovery when related)
- Ward v Titan Ins Co, 287 Mich App 552 (2010) (incremental approach to housing expenses under Griffith)
- Hoover v Mich Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 617 (2008) (applies Griffith to various household expenses; 'but for' approach)
- Krohn v Home-Owners Ins Co, 490 Mich 145 (2011) (later reaffirmations and critiques of Griffith framework)