Johnson v. Recca, 492 Mich. 169

Plaintiff was struck by defendant's vehicle in July 2004 and pursued third-party tort damages for replacement services under MCL 500.3135(3)(c).
Plaintiff lived with ex-mother-in-law (Johnson) and neither party had a vehicle or insurance at the time.
Trial court granted summary disposition for defendant; Court of Appeals reversed to allow replacement services under 500.3135(3)(c).
Supreme Court granted leave to decide if 500.3135(3)(c) includes replacement services incurred more than three years after the accident.
Statutory question centers on whether replacement services are recoverable as part of PIP benefits in a third-party action under the no-fault act.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Are replacement services recoverable under 500.3135(3)(c)?	Johnson argues replacement services fall within 500.3135(3)(c) as allowable expenses.	Markman majority argues replacement services are not listed in 500.3135(3)(c) and thus not recoverable.	No; replacement services are not recoverable under 500.3135(3)(c).
Are replacement services a subcategory of allowable expenses?	Johnson asserts replacement services are a separate category from allowable expenses.	Responds that replacement services are subsumed under allowable expenses per Griffith interpretation.	They are separate and distinct categories; not a subcategory of allowable expenses.
Does Griffith v State Farm bind the interpretation of replacement services?	Argues Griffith supports including replacement services as care-related allowable expenses.	Griffith does not place replacement services within allowable expenses; care must relate to injuries.	Griffith does not make replacement services an allowable expense; they are separate from allowable expenses.
Is the majority’s approach consistent with the no-fault scheme or appropriate policy considerations (absurd-results doctrine)?	Argues the majority misapplies statutory structure and creates absurd results.	Argues majority adheres to text and legislative organization.	The court rejects the “absurd results” approach for interpreting the statute.

USF&G v Mich Catastrophic Claims Ass’n, 484 Mich 1 (2009) (enforces clear, unambiguous statutory provisions; statutory interpretation guided by plain meaning)
Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 (2005) (clarifies care vs. allowable expenses; replacement services not within ‘care’)
Swantek v Auto Club of Mich Ins Group, 118 Mich App 807 (1982) (historical basis for excess ordinary and necessary services recoverability)
Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109 (2004) (noting discussion of replacement services in tort; later overruled in part)
Cameron v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 476 Mich 55 (2006) (absurd results doctrine discussions; dissent cited on policy)