Figuring out how much the no-fault insurer should pay the mom who provides daily care to her son injured in a car accident is difficult. Douglas v Allstate Ins Co recently rejected an hourly rate for family-provided attendant-care services that was based on a health care agency rate. The court held, “[W]hat health care agencies charge their patients is too attenuated from the appropriate hourly rate for a family member’s services to be controlling.”
The phrase “to be controlling” is key, and that may not have been obvious to most of us until months later when the Michigan Supreme Court denied leave to appeal in Hardrick v Auto Club Ins Ass’n. In Hardrick, the court held that the rate for agency-provided attendant-care services “constitutes a material and probative measure of the general value of attendant-care services, including care provided by family members.” Many probably thought Douglas overruled Hardrick and would have expected the court to say as much. Instead, the court stated the issues in Hardrick didn’t warrant review. So what is going on?
I asked Bob Logeman, author of Michigan No-Fault Automobile Cases. Bob explained that, despite the different outcomes in the cases, the holdings have similar components. Both acknowledge that agency rates can’t be controlling in the family-care context. And like Hardrick, Douglas accepts (albeit in footnote 79) that agency rates can be relevant in determining family-provided care rates. This is good news for plaintiff’s attorneys who may have been discouraged by Douglas.
You can read more of Bob’s updated analysis of no-fault law in Michigan No-Fault Automobile Cases.