PHYLLIS L GRIFFITH V STATE FARM MUTUAL
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
PHYLLIS L. GRIFFITH, Legal Guardian for
DOUGLAS W. GRIFFITH, a Legally
Incapacitated Adult,
UNPUBLISHED
August 16, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellee,
No. 232517
Ingham Circuit Court
LC No. 97-087437-NF
v
STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Before: White, P.J., and Neff and Jansen, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant appeals as of right the trial court’s order ruling that room and board expenses
for Douglas W. Griffith (hereinafter “Griffith”), a legally incapacitated adult, are an allowable
expense under the no-fault act. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On April 28, 1994, Griffith sustained a severe brain injury in a motor vehicle accident.
The accident left him totally disabled. He requires constant monitoring, care and assistance with
every aspect of life. For fifteen months after the accident Griffith received in-patient treatment
in hospitals and rehabilitation facilities. From August 1995 through August 1997 Griffith
resided in a modified apartment and received continuous care. On August 6, 1997, Griffith
returned to his home. Plaintiff, his wife, and other attendants provide the care that he requires.
At the time of the accident Griffith was covered under a no-fault automobile insurance
policy issued by defendant. During the period that Griffith was hospitalized and while he resided
in the apartment, defendant paid his expenses, including those incurred for food. After Griffith
returned home a dispute arose regarding defendant’s obligation to pay for various modifications
to his home and for certain other expenses, including his food. Plaintiff filed suit seeking
reimbursement of certain expenses, including those incurred for Griffith’s food. The trial court
ruled that the cost of Griffith’s food was an allowable expense under MCL 500.3107(1)(a). That
ruling is the only aspect of the trial court’s decision challenged on appeal.
Defendant argues the trial court erred by holding that the cost of Griffith’s food was an
allowable expense under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), and asserts that a causal link must exist between
-1-
injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident and an incurred expense. Defendant reasons that a
person must consume food regardless of whether he is disabled and regardless of where he
resides, and maintains that once Griffith returned home, his food expenses were no longer
incurred as a result of his injuries. We affirm the trial court’s decision.
Under the no-fault insurance act, an insurer must pay benefits for accidental bodily injury
arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle. Payable benefits
include allowable expenses. Allowable expenses consist of all reasonable charges incurred for
reasonably necessary products, services, and accommodations for an injured person’s care,
recovery, or rehabilitation. MCL 500.3105(1); MCL 500.3107(1)(a). To be entitled to
reimbursement for an allowable expense under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), a plaintiff must prove that:
(1) the expense was reasonable; (2) the expense was reasonably necessary; and (3) the expense
was incurred. Spect Imaging, Inc v Allstate Ins Co, 246 Mich App 568, 574; 633 NW2d 461
(2001).
The issue raised in this appeal is controlled by Reed v Citizens Ins Co, 198 Mich App
443, 453; 499 NW2d 22 (1993). In Reed, this Court held that where a person injured in a motor
vehicle accident is unable to care for himself or herself and would be institutionalized if a family
member were unwilling to provide home care, a no-fault carrier liable for the cost of
maintenance in an institution is liable for the cost of maintenance, including room and board, in
the home. The Reed Court expressed agreement with Justice Boyle’s statement in Manley v
DAIIE, 425 Mich 140, 152-153; 388 NW2d 216 (1986), that if a person who would require
institutionalized care can be cared for at home due to the devotion of family members, the test
for allowable expenses should not differ from that set out in MCL 500.3107(1)(a). Manley,
supra, 169 (Boyle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).1
Defendant’s assertion that the no-fault act requires that an expense, to be allowable, must
have been incurred only as a result of an injured insured being cared for in an institutionalized
setting was rejected in Reed, supra at 453. Defendant does not dispute that if Griffith’s wife
were unwilling or unable to care for him at home, he would require institutionalized care. Under
the rule announced in Reed, supra, the cost of Griffith’s food is an allowable expense under
MCL 500.3107(1)(a).
1
In Manley v DAIIE, 127 Mich App 444; 339 NW2d 205 (1983), a jury found the defendant
insurer liable for payment of food expenses for the injured insured, who was cared for at home
by family members. On appeal, this Court stated that food obtained at an institution is an
allowable expense because an institutionalized person must obtain food from the institution, and
the expense represented an extraordinary cost not analogous to an expense incurred at home.
This Court reversed the award of room and board on the ground that it did not distinguish
between food expenses and the other services provided by an institution. Id., 454. In Manley v
DAIIE, 425 Mich 140, 152-153; 388 NW2d 216 (1986), our Supreme Court declared that portion
of this Court’s opinion to be without precedential effect on the ground that the issue whether
food and other maintenance expenses are allowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) was
not presented in the trial court or argued in this Court.
-2-
Defendant’s efforts to distinguish Reed are unavailing where the Reed Court held that if
an injured insured would otherwise require institutionalized care were a family member not
willing to provide home care, room and board in the home constitutes an allowable expense
under MCL 500.3107(1)(a). Reed, supra.
Affirmed.
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Kathleen Jansen
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.