Recovery of no-fault attorney fees; MCL 500.3148(1); Moore v Secura Ins; Prevailing party costs; MCR 2.625; Claim that the use of face masks denied plaintiff a fair trial; Due process in civil cases; United States v Crittenden (Unpub MD GA); Whether the verdicts as to additional PIP benefits for replacement services & work loss were against the great weight of the evidence; MCL 500.3107(1)(c) & (b)

The court concluded that the trial court did not err by holding that plaintiff was not entitled to no-fault attorney fees even though the jury found that payment for mileage was overdue. However, it erred by ruling that he was not the prevailing party. He did not show that he was "entitled to relief because the jurors, attorneys, or some of the witnesses wore cloth face masks during trial." Finally, he was not entitled to relief as to the jury’s verdict refusing to award additional PIP benefits for replacement services and wage-loss benefits. Thus, it affirmed the jury’s verdicts and the trial court’s denial of attorney fees, but vacated the denial of court costs and remanded for “the trial court to determine, within its discretion, whether plaintiff’s motion for costs should be denied even though he is the prevailing party under MCR 2.625.” He was involved in a car accident in which his car was struck from behind by a vehicle owned by one of the defendants and driven by another of the defendants. Plaintiff maintained that he sustained injuries and was entitled to PIP benefits from his insurer, defendant-Auto-Owners, “which initially paid benefits, but then stopped.” Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to no-fault attorney fees because Auto-Owners "did not present any evidence to rebut the presumption that its failure to pay this amount was unreasonable." However, contrary to his argument, "the decision to put plaintiff’s claim under investigation was reasonable under the circumstances. At trial, conflicting evidence was presented about the continued severity of plaintiff’s injuries and recommended courses of treatment." The court concluded that the trial court did not clearly err when it held that "Auto-Owners’ initial refusal to pay for the mileage ultimately awarded by the jury was reasonable under the circumstances." But the court found that the trial court should have reviewed his motion for prevailing party costs “under MCL 600.2421b(3)(b) and the second sentence of MCR 2.625(B)(2) to determine whether plaintiff was the prevailing party. Under the applicable provisions, plaintiff was the prevailing party. A party need not recover the full amount of requested damages to be a prevailing party entitled to costs under MCR 2.625. Rather the party must only show that its position was improved by the litigation.” But he was not automatically entitled to costs on this basis.