Action under the No-Fault Act (NFA) to recover for medical services rendered; Penalty interest under the NFA (MCL 500.3142); Williams v AAA MI; Reasonable proof of loss; Attorney fees under the NFA (MCL 500.3148(1)); Ross v Auto Club Group

Because the trial court failed to determine when plaintiff-VHS submitted its reasonable proof of loss, the court vacated the order denying VHS interest under MCL 500.3142(2) and attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1), and remanded. VHS asserted that it was “entitled to penalty interest under MCL 500.3142 because the payments were due 30 days after it sent its bills to” defendant-Allstate. The record showed that VHS provided Allstate with five billing statements between 3/1/23 and 2/27/24. But the trial court did not “make findings as to whether those billing statements constituted reasonable proof of the fact and the amount of a claim in accordance with MCL 3142(2).” Given that payment was not issued until 6/17/24, if the trial court found the billing statements constituted “reasonable proof of the fact and of the amount of loss sustained, then the payments were overdue.” However, Allstate contended “it did not receive reasonable proof for all of VHS’s claims until it received an [4/1/24] e-mail from VHS’s lawyer. If this e-mail constituted reasonable proof of the claim, then the 90-day deadline under MCL 500.3142(3) would have expired on [6/30/24]. Under this factual scenario, because payment would be within 90 days of the receipt of reasonable proof of the fact and of the amount of loss, then the payment would not have been overdue and VHS would not be entitled to penalty interest.” But instead of “resolving this factual dispute, the trial court erroneously focused on whether Allstate had acted diligently in investigating VHS’s claim.” The court concluded that by “considering whether Allstate’s actions were reasonable, the trial court improperly read a requirement into the statute that VHS needed to demonstrate that there was an unreasonable delay in payment of benefits. Such a requirement impermissibly contravenes the language in the statute[.]” On remand, the trial court must make findings as to “when Allstate received ‘reasonable proof of the fact and of the amount of loss sustained,’ and, if appropriate, for a calculation of penalty interest.” In addition, more factual finding as “to when the claims became overdue is necessary to fully evaluate VHS’s request for attorney fees. Consequently, a remand for findings regarding the timeline as to VHS’s reasonable proof of loss and which claims were subject to factual uncertainty at the time that Allstate initially refused to pay is in order.”