died, of contributions of tangible things of economic value, not including services, that dependents of the deceased at the time of the deceased's death would have received for support during their dependency from the deceased if the deceased had not suffered the accidental bodily injury causing death and expenses .... Gobler v. Auto–Owners Ins. Co., 428 Mich. 51, 60, 404 N.W.2d 199 (1987), citing MCL 500.3108(1) (emphasis altered). The decedent in that case died on the day that he completed his final requirements for a forestry degree from Michigan State University, had applied for forestry positions, was awarded a degree posthumously, and received what amounted to a job offer six months after he died.

It is fundamental that an unambiguous statute is to be given effect, although departure may be justified when a literal construction "`would produce an absurd and unjust result and would be clearly inconsistent with the purposes and the policies of the act in question.'" Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich. 51, 62; 404 N.W.2d 199 (1987), quoting Salas v Clements, 399 Mich. 103, 109; 247 N.W.2d 889 (1976). Statutes which may appear to conflict are to be read together and reconciled, if possible.

A refusal or delay in payment by an insurer will not be found unreasonable within the meaning of § 3148(1) where the refusal or delay is the product of a legitimate question of statutory construction, constitutional law, or a bona fide factual uncertainty. Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich. 51, 66; 404 N.W.2d 199 (1987); United Southern Assurance Co v Aetna Life Casualty Ins Co, 189 Mich. App. 485; 474 N.W.2d 131 (1991). A trial court's finding of unreasonable refusal or delay will not be reversed on appeal unless it is clearly erroneous.

The no-fault act is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed in favor of persons intended to benefit thereby. Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich. 51, 61; 604 N.W.2d 199 (1987). As a corollary, the act provides for certain exclusions for those who are uninsured.

Putkamer v Transamerica Ins Corp of America, 454 Mich. 626, 631; 563 N.W.2d 683 (1997). See also Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich. 51, 61; 404 N.W.2d 199 (1987); Walega v Walega, 312 Mich.App. 259, 266; 877 N.W.2d 910 (2015); Churchman v Rickerson, 240 Mich.App. 223, 228; 611 N.W.2d 333 (2000).

This Court concluded that it was not convinced that the trial court had made a mistake in finding that the deceased "would have been employed by the forestry service had he survived the accident."Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich 51, 60; 404 NW2d 199 (1987), citing MCL 500.3108(1) (emphasis altered). Id. at 55-57, 65-66.

Herman v Berrien Co, 481 Mich 352, 366; 750 NW2d 570 (2008).Turner v Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 448 Mich 22, 28; 528 NW2d 681 (1995), citing Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich 51, 61; 404 NW2d 199 (1987). The statute at issue, MCL 500.3107(1), provides in pertinent part:

8 NW 451 (1918); Attorney General v Detroit UR Co, 210 Mich 227, 254; 177 NW 726 (1920); Grand Rapids v Crocker, 219 Mich 178, 183-184; 189 NW 221 (1922); Cytacki v Buscko, 226 Mich 524, 528; 197 NW 1021 (1924); Lukazewski v Sovereign Camp of the Woodmen of the World, 270 Mich 415, 421; 259 NW 307 (1935); Mondou v Lincoln Mut Cas Co, 283 Mich 353, 358; 278 NW 94 (1938); Elba Twp v Gratiot Co, 287 Mich 372, 394; 283 NW 615 (1939); Wayne Co Bd of Rd Comm'rs v Wayne Co Clerk, 293 Mich 229, 236; 291 NW 879 (1940); Superx Drugs Corp v State Bd of Pharmacy, 378 Mich 430, 457; 146 NW2d 1 (1966) (opinion by O'HARA, J.); Salas v Clements, 399 Mich 103, 109; 247 NW2d 889 (1976); Metro Council No 23 AFSCME v Oakland Co Prosecutor, 409 Mich 299, 325, 327-328; 294 NW2d 578 (1980); Owendale-Gagetown School Dist v State Bd of Ed, 413 Mich 1, 8; 317 NW2d 529 (1982); Achtenberg v East Lansing, 421 Mich 765, 772; 364 NW2d 277 (1985); State Treasurer v Wilson, 423 Mich 138, 145-146; 377 NW2d 770 (1985); Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich 51, 62; 404 NW2d 199 (1987); People v Stoudemire, 429 Mich 262, 267; 414 NW2d 693 (1987); Belanger v Warren Consolidated School Dist, Bd of Ed, 432 Mich 575, 589; 443 NW2d 772 (1989); Bewersdorf, supra at 68. See also the subsequent decision of this Court in Rafferty v Markovitz, 461 Mich 265, 270; 602 NW2d 367 (1999) ("[Statutes must be construed to prevent absurd results.

However, the circuit court denied appellate attorney fees in this particular case, noting that the Court of Appeals had said that it was a "close" question whether ACIA'S refusal had been entirely unreasonable: Considering that a delay in payment by an insurer is not unreasonable where the delay is the product of a legitimate question of statutory construction, constitutional law, or a bona fide factual uncertainty, Gobler v. Auto-Owners Insurance Co, 428 Mich. 51, 66; 404 N.W.2d 199 (1987), the Court is also not convinced a not-fault insurer should be additionally penalized when it undertakes an appeal of a close question determined by the trial court. Mr. McKelvie appealed the denial of appellate attorney fees, and the Court of Appeals reversed in a two-to-one opinion.

Finally, when courts interpret the no-fault act in particular, they are to remember that the act is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed in favor of the persons intended to benefit from it. Gobler v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 428 Mich. 51, 61; 404 N.W.2d 199 (1987). II