|
No. 132949
| Randy C. Burris, |
|
Craig J. Pollard |
Plaintiff-Appellee, |
|
|
| v |
(Appeal from Ct of Appeals) |
|
|
(Wayne - Biovan, W.) |
|
|
| Allstate Insurance Co., |
|
Christine M. Sutton |
| Defendant-Appellant. |
|
|
| __________________________________________ |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiff-Appellee's Brief in Opposition to Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Plaintiff-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellant's Application for Leave to Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellant's Supplemental Brief>>
Coalition Protecting Automobile No-Fault's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
On July 17, 1978, six-year-old Randy Burris was riding on a bicycle with his mother when they were hit by a drunk driver. Burris sustained severe injuries, including orthopedic injuries, traumatic brain injury, and internal injuries. He was in a coma for several months and, while in the coma, suffered a stroke. As a result of his injuries, Burris’s left arm and leg are nearly non-functional. Allstate Insurance Company is Burris’s automobile insurer. Burris sued Allstate in 2002, claiming that Allstate had failed to pay medical expenses and attendant care benefits owing under the no-fault act. Under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), such benefits are payable for “[a]llowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.” Burris claimed that his father, his brother, and a friend provided attendant care services pursuant to a doctor’s order that he receive 24-hour care, and that Allstate had wrongfully refused to reimburse him for these reasonably incurred charges. Following a trial, a jury awarded Burris $86,048.98 in no-fault benefits, including an award of $78,438.00 for attendant care services. The trial court subsequently granted Allstate’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict in part, overturning the jury’s award of attendant care benefits. The trial court concluded that any services provided by Burris’s father, brother, and friend were not reimbursable. He explained that the three “couldn’t say what they did. They couldn’t specify the number of hours. They couldn’t even manage to say that they expected reimbursement. They went so far as to say they didn’t expect to get anything.” Burris appealed this ruling, and the Court of Appeals reversed in an unpublished opinion. The Court of Appeals ruled that the jury’s verdict should be reinstated because Burris produced evidence, at trial, that attendant care services were actually provided to him. The Court of Appeals held that Burris “was not required to actually be billed by his family and friend in order to establish that he ‘incurred’ the expense of their attendant care services; thus, it was for the jury to decide whether he was entitled to collect the value of the services and to make the determination of the value.” Allstate appeals.
Top of Page
|
