Opinion
No. 130917.
June 15, 2007.
Reported below: 269 Mich App 356.
Leave to Appeal Granted.
The parties shall include among the issues to be briefed: (1) what is the appropriate standard of review of a trial court's decision on whether to award attorney fees pursuant to MCL 500.3148(1), see Attard v Citizens Ins Co of America, 237 Mich App 311, 316 (1999) (clear error); contrast Shanafelt v Allstate Ins Co, 217 Mich App 625, 634-635 (1996) (abuse of discretion); compare Sweebe v Sweebe, 474 Mich 151, 154 (2006) (waiver is a mixed question of law and fact); Herald Co, Inc v Eastern Mich Univ Bd of Regents, 475 Mich 463, 471-472 (2006) ("the clear error standard has historically been applied when reviewing a trial court's factual findings whereas the abuse of discretion standard is applied when reviewing matters left to the trial court's discretion"; any inherent "legal determinations are reviewed under a de novo standard"); (2) what is the appropriate method of determining whether a claimant is entitled to work loss benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3107(1)(b) for loss of income where the claimant is the sole shareholder and employee of a subchapter S corporation, 26 USC 1361 et seq.; (3) in evaluating the claimant's work loss claim, what is the relevance, if any, of (a) the subchapter S corporation's profit or loss and (b) the wages the sole shareholder reports to the federal government for income tax purposes; and (4) when an insurer refuses or delays payment of benefits, is a rebuttable presumption that the refusal or delay was unreasonable (see Combs v Commercial Carriers, Inc, 117 Mich App 67, 73) consistent with the language of MCL 500.3148(1)? The Michigan Trial Lawyers Association, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel, Inc., and any interested section of the State Bar of Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of the issues presented in this case may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
I would deny leave to appeal.