From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilcox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 29, 2010
791 N.W.2d 723 (Mich. 2010)

Opinion

No. 138602.

December 29, 2010.

Court of Appeals No. 290515.


Reconsideration Granted.

Leave to appeal denied at 488 Mich 930. The motion for reconsideration of this Court's November 9, 2010, order is considered, and it is granted for the limited purpose of clarifying the remand instructions issued by the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals stated that "[w]hether a cost constitutes an allowable expense is a question of law and so it is to be determined by the court, not the jury." Although whether an expense constitutes an "allowable expense" under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) is generally a question of law for the court, Griffith v. State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 472 Mich 521, 525-526 (2005), "the question whether expenses are reasonable and reasonably necessary is generally one, of fact for the jury," Nasser v. Auto Club Ins Ass'n, 435 Mich 33, 55 (1990). Therefore, to the extent that there are material questions of fact pertaining to whether the expenses in this case are reasonable and reasonably necessary, these questions of fact must be decided by a jury.

CAVANAGH, J., stated as follows: Although I agree with this Court's decision to clarify the remand instructions issued by the Court of Appeals, I continue to disagree with this Court's order vacating its April 16, 2010, order and denying leave to appeal, for the reasons stated in my dissenting statement in this case. 488 Mich 930, 930-932 (2010).

KELLY, C.J., and HATHAWAY, J., joined the statement of CAVANAGH, J.


Summaries of

Wilcox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Supreme Court of Michigan
Dec 29, 2010
791 N.W.2d 723 (Mich. 2010)
Case details for

Wilcox v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co.

Case Details

Full title:WILCOX v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: Dec 29, 2010

Citations

791 N.W.2d 723 (Mich. 2010)
488 Mich. 1011

Citing Cases

Krohn v. Home-Owners Ins. Com

Instead, we are simply holding that because plaintiff presented no objective evidence that the procedure…