Tm v. Aaa of Michigan, 366360

Plaintiff (TM, a minor represented by her mother) was struck by a car in 2004 and, lacking a no-fault policy, her claim was assigned to AAA under Michigan's Assigned Claims Plan.
Plaintiff sought personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits, including attendant care for alleged traumatic brain injury, which AAA partially denied, disputing causation for her mental/behavioral issues.
After trial, a jury awarded $41,280 but the parties stipulated to a $25,000 judgment (district court’s jurisdictional cap) in 2011 for attendant care benefits.
AAA appealed, first on subject-matter jurisdiction grounds, resulting in nearly a decade of litigation up to the Michigan Supreme Court and back, with AAA finally making the benefit payment in 2020.
Plaintiff then sought appellate attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1) for the protracted delay, arguing the delay was unreasonable.
Both the district and circuit courts awarded appellate attorney fees, finding AAA's prolonged post-judgment delay unjustified; AAA appealed, mainly contesting liability for fees based on the reasonableness of its initial denial and subsequent delay.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does an insurer's unreasonable post-judgment delay warrant attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1)?	Delay in paying the judgment post-jury-verdict was unreasonable, regardless of initial denial's reasonableness.	Initial denial was reasonable due to bona fide factual dispute; only unreasonable denials warrant fees.	Yes; unreasonable delay post-judgment independently authorizes fees under MCL 500.3148(1).
Whether AAA’s use of settlement evidence violated MRE 408	Settlement showed AAA conceded reasonableness of fee claim.	Use of settlement as evidence of liability/waiver is barred by MRE 408.	Court erred in considering settlement under MRE 408, but error was harmless.
Was AAA's prolonged appellate litigation a legitimate basis to delay payment?	No; appeals did not justify delay post-judgment—jurisdictional arguments unrelated to merit of claim.	Appeals were based on jurisdiction/statutes; delay was not unreasonable given split decisions.	Appeals did not excuse payment; AAA failed to rebut presumption of unreasonable delay.
Sufficiency of trial court’s factual findings on fees	Court sufficiently justified reasonableness of the award.	District court failed to adequately support reasonableness of hours/rates.	District court's findings were adequate under clear error review.

Ross v. Auto Club Group, 481 Mich 1 (Mich. 2008) (explains criteria for awarding attorney fees under the no-fault act; insurer’s initial refusal or delay must be unreasonable)
Moore v. Secura Ins., 482 Mich 507 (Mich. 2008) (clarifies procedures for determining when PIP benefits are overdue and the award of attorney fees)
Proudfoot v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 469 Mich 476 (Mich. 2003) (attorney fees are payable only on overdue benefits unreasonably refused or delayed)
Shavers v. Attorney General, 402 Mich 554 (Mich. 1978) (establishes the policy for prompt payment of no-fault benefits)
Detroit Med. Ctr. v. Progressive Mich. Ins. Co., 302 Mich App 392 (Mich. Ct. App 2013) (describes required causal connection for PIP benefit eligibility)