Later courts went against this
Overruled in part, on other grounds by Admire v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 494 Mich. 10 (2013)
773 NW2d 271 (2009), overruled in part on other grounds by Admire v Auto- Owners Ins Co, 494 Mich 10
The opinion
HOEKSTRA, J.
(concurring). I agree with and join with the majority in its resolution of Docket No. 284114.
In Docket No. 2798911 concur in the result, but write separately to express my disagreement with the majority’s conclusion that Davis v Citizens Ins Co of America, 195 Mich App 323 ; 489 NW2d 214 (1992), is controlling. The majority aptly noted that in Griffith v State Farm Mut Automobile Ins Co, 472 Mich 521 ; 697 NW2d 895 (2005), “our Supreme Court without mentioning this Court’s decision in Davis , clarified judicial construction of MCL 500.3107(l)(a), on which the Davis Court relied.” Ante at 594. In my opinion, the clarification stated in Griffith is applicable to all cases where compensation is sought for allowable expenses, including vans, under MCL 500.3107(l)(a). Thus, to receive compensation for his modified van, plaintiff was required to establish that the charge was reasonable, that the expense was reasonably necessary, that the expense was incurred, and that the van was “for” his care, recovery, or rehabilitation. Griffith, supra at 532 , 532 n 8.
*609 Nonetheless, I join with the majority in rejecting defendants’ claim that Griffith advocates a bright-line rule that precludes as an allowable expense any motor vehicle similar to one owned by the injured person before the injury. As stated by the majority, an analysis of a case’s specific facts and circumstances is required. However, because of the entry of the parties’ consent judgment, an inquiry into the present case’s facts and circumstances is foreclosed. Consequently, I join in the result of affirming the trial court’s order denying defendants’ motion for summary disposition.