832 N.W.2d 276
Mich. Ct. App.2013Background
- Carroll suffered a severe head injury in a 1982 auto accident; conservator May was appointed in 2008 to manage Carroll’s estate.
- Auto Club (no-fault insurer) initially opposed paying May’s fees, arguing they were not allowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a).
- probate court limited Auto Club to pay $99 of May’s fee, with the remainder charged to Carroll’s estate.
- This Court previously held May’s entire fee was compensable under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) based on an expansive view of “care.”
- Supreme Court decisions in Johnson and Douglas prompted remand to reconsider in light of Griffith and Johnson; the court now restricts compensation to services directly related to the injured person’s care/recovery/rehabilitation.
- The probate court’s findings on which services were compensable and the amounts were not challenged by May, so the court affirms the ruling that Auto Club pays only for those services not constituting replacement services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are conservator fees recoverable as allowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) or as replacement services under (1)(c)? | May argues fees are for Carroll’s care as inseparable from his injury. | Auto Club contends fees are replacement services unless directly tied to care. | Some May services are (a) care-related; others are (c) replacement services; only care-related are recoverable. |
| How do Griffith, Johnson, and Douglas framework govern when a service is compensable as care rather than replacement? | May relies on broad notion that conservator services can be care-related. | Insurer argues Griffith/Joynson limit care to injury-related, excluding ordinary tasks unless not replaceable. | Care requires injury-related necessity; replacement services are separate; ordinary tasks may be replacement. |
| In applying the law to Carroll, are May’s estate-management services partly compensable as care and partly as replacement? | Some services are necessary for Carroll’s care due to injury. | Some services are ordinary household management not tied to injury. | Yes; extraordinary, injury-specific services are compensable under (1)(a); ordinary tasks fall under (1)(c) and are not. |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffith v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 472 Mich. 521 (Mich. 2005) (limits on what is ‘care’; replacement services are separate from allowable expenses)
- Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich. 169 (Mich. 2012) (clarifies distinction between allowable expenses and replacement services)
- Douglas v. Allstate Ins. Co., 492 Mich. 241 (Mich. 2012) (defines ‘care’ narrowly and permits family-member services if tied to injury and not ordinary)
- Heinz v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 214 Mich. App. 195 (Mich. App. 1995) (early broad interpretation of ‘care’ before Griffith/Johnson/Douglas)
- Fortier v. Aetna Cas. & Surety Co., 131 Mich. App. 784 (Mich. App. 1984) (application of replacement services concepts)
- Van Marter v. American Fidelity Fire Ins. Co., 114 Mich. App. 171 (Mich. App. 1982) (recognizes no-fault services may be performed by non-professionals)
- Visconti v. Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch., 90 Mich. App. 477 (Mich. App. 1979) (no-fault expenses framework allowing non-provider performance of services)
- In re Geror, 286 Mich. App. 132 (Mich. App. 2009) (supporting broad concept of care-related expenses)