Attendant care benefits “incurred”; MCL 500.3107; Douglas v Allstate Ins Co; Written order, oral ruling, & stipulation to form; MCR 2.602; Roberts v Farmers Ins Exch; Relief from judgment; Waiver; MCR 2.612; Tolas Oil & Gas Exploration Co v Bach Servs & Mfg, LLC; Causation; Intervening accident; MCL 500.3105; Griffith v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co

The court held that defendant was entitled to summary disposition on plaintiff’s attendant-care claims and on all remaining PIP claims because plaintiff failed to show that attendant-care expenses were “incurred” and failed to create a genuine issue of material fact on causation in light of later injuries. Plaintiff, a Michigan resident injured in a 2005 Kentucky crash, sought PIP benefits from defendant, including for extensive attendant care. After discovery showed most listed “care providers” testified they were volunteers, were paid by other sources, or did not recall providing services, defendant moved for summary disposition. The court noted that an expense is “incurred” only if the insured becomes liable to pay it and the providers expect compensation, and held that the record “failed to establish that the attendant care providers expected compensation for their services.” Plaintiff’s emailed “Google Doc” response was not properly filed and, even if considered, did not address whether compensable attendant care existed and relied on a “mere promise” to prove issues at trial rather than admissible evidence. The court rejected plaintiff’s challenge to inclusion of one provider in the written order because his counsel stipulated to the order’s “form and content,” and a written order that the court finds comports with its decision controls. It further held plaintiff waived any claim that defendant misrepresented the oral ruling by not raising it in his relief-from-judgment motion. On defendant’s cross-appeal, the court ruled that undisputed medical records, plaintiff’s 2014 protest-related suit, and a 2015 fall showed an intervening cause and that plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that “two thirds” of his damages still arose from 2005 did not create a fact question, so summary disposition should have been granted on causation as well. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.