-1- 

### STATE OF MICHIGAN

COURT OF APPEALS

LINDITA PIRGU, Guardian and Conservator of FERIDON PIRGU, a Legally Incapacitated Person,

Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED December 16, 2014

v No. 314523 Oakland Circuit Court UNITED STATES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION, d/b/a USAA INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., LC No. 2011-119378-NI

Defendant-Appellee.

Before: B ECKERING , P.J., and H OEKSTRA and G LEICHER , JJ.

P ER C URIAM

. In this action by plaintiff, Lindita Pir gu, guardian and conservator of Feridon Pirgu, a legally incapacitated person, to determine Feridon’ s entitlement to no-fault personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits, plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court’s Ja nuary 9, 2013 order that granted judgment in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $70,237.44 for attendant care benefits, wage loss benefits, and penalty interest. In add ition, the order gran ted plaintiff $23,412.48 in attorney fees against defendant, United Servi ce Automobile Association, d/b/a USAA Insurance Agency, Inc., for defendant’s unreasonable failure to pay PIP benefits. Plaintiff challenges the amount of attorney fees awarded, the propriety of the jury’s de termination that Feridon was not entitled to future PIP benefits, and the trial court’ s denial of attorney fees for services provided by the Findling Law Firm, the firm retained to represent plaintiff in her role as guardian and conservator. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. PERTINENT FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On approximately October 15, 2008, Feridon, w ho did not have no-fault insurance, was riding his bicycle and was struck by one of defendant’s insure ds. Feridon sustained a closed head injury in the accident. In December of 2008, Lindita, Feridon’s wife, was appointed guardian and conservator for Feri don. Plaintiff sought PIP benef its for Feridon shortly after the accident in the form of: (1) reasonable charges incurred for products, services, and accommodations that were reasonably necessary for Feridon’s care; (2) loss of wages because Feridon was unable to work; and (3 ) daily expenses for attendant care for Feridon. Plaintiff-2- alleged that Feridon required 24-hour attendant care. Because Feridon was uninsured, his claim for no-fault benefits was originally assigned to the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility, which assigned the claim to Citizens In surance Company. Citizens init ially paid PIP benefits to plaintiff. Following a priority dispute be tween Citizens and defendant, defendant was determined to have first priority for the pa yment of PIP benefits. Thereafter, defendant conducted surveillance on Feridon and required him to submit to independent medical examinations. As a result of its investiga tions, defendant ceased paying PIP benefits in approximately October 2010.

The matter proceeded to trial and the jury aw arded relief to plaintiff as noted above. The extent of Feridon’s injuries and the amount of the ju ry award for attendant care benefits is not at issue on this appeal.

II. ATTORNEY FEES UNDER MCL 500.3148(1)

The trial court awarded a ttorney fees to plaintiff pursuant to MCL 500.3148(1) for defendant’s unreasonable delay and/or failure to pa y PIP benefits. Plaintiff argues that the trial court abused its discretion in awarding only $23,412.48 in attorney fe es and that the trial court should have engaged in the analysis set forth by our Supreme Court in Smith v Khouri , 481 Mich 519; 751 NW2d 472 (2008). We review the trial court’s decision to award attorney fees and its determination as to the reasonableness of the fees for an abuse of discretion. Augustine v Allstate Ins Co , 292 Mich App 408, 424; 807 NW2d 77 (2011). “A n abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court’s decision falls outside the range of reasonable and principled outcomes.” Edge v Edge , 299 Mich App 121, 127; 829 NW2d 276 (2012) (citation and quotation omitted).

“The general ‘American rule’ is that attorn ey fees are not ordinar ily recoverable unless a statute, court rule, or common-law exception provides the contrary.” Smith , 481 Mich at 526 (citation and quotation omitted). “In no-fault pe rsonal injury protection insurance cases, MCL 500.3148(1) permits a claimant to obta in attorney fees from an insu rer ‘if the court finds that the insurer unreasonably refused to pay the clai m or unreasonably delayed in making proper payment.’” Brown v Home-Owners Ins Co , 298 Mich App 678, 690; 828 NW2d 400 (2012), quoting MCL 500.3148(1).

Plaintiff contends that the trial court was required to follow the framework that our Supreme Court set forth in Smith , 481 Mich at 528-530, for determining the reasonableness of attorney fees in certain situations. This framew ork requires a trial court to “begin its analysis by determining the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services . . . .” Id. at 530. “Once the trial judge has determined this hour ly rate, the judge must multiply this rate by the reasonable number of hours expended in the case. The product of this calculation serves as the starting point for calculating a reasonable attorney fee.” Adair v Michigan (On Fourth Remand) , 301 Mich App 547, 552; 836 NW2d 742 (2013). This amount can then be adjusted based on a variety of factors, including those set forth in Wood v DAIIE , 413 Mich 573, 588; 321-3- NW2d 653 (1982) 1 , Michigan Rules of Professional Conduct 1.5(a) 2 , and other relevant factors. Smith , 481 Mich at 529-531.

In the case at bar, the trial c ourt did not begin its analysis of plaintiff’s attorney fee award by multiplying a reasonable hourly ra te by a reasonable number of hours. Rather, the trial court noted that the jury awarded plai ntiff approximately 33 percent of the amount she requested and awarded attorney fees by calculating approximate ly 33 percent of the ju ry verdict. Upon objections by plaintiff’s counsel, and over the cour se of two hearings and much discourse on the topic, the trial court acknowledged ma ny of the factors set forth in Wood and MRPC 1.5(a) and concluded that its award of a ttorney fees was reasonable. The trial court also found that plaintiff’s counsel “fumbl ed around” during trial and de bene esse depositions, and that some of the hours billed by plaintiff’s counsel were unnecessary.

In light of binding precedent to the contrary, plaintiff is inco rrect in contending that the trial court was required to follow the Smith framework when assessing attorney fees. Univ Rehab Alliance, Inc v Farm Bureau General Ins Co of Michigan , 279 Mich App 691, 700 n 3; 760 NW2d 574 (2008). A panel of this court in Univ Rehab Alliance expressly rejected the

1 The Wood factors are: “(1) the pr ofessional standing and experien ce of the attorney; (2) the skill, time and labor involved; (3) the amount in question and the results achieved; (4) the difficulty of the case; (5) the expenses incurred; and (6) the nature and le ngth of the professional relationship with the client.” Wood , 413 Mich at 588 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
2 MRPC 1.5(a) sets forth the following fact ors to be considered in determining the reasonableness of a fee: (1) the time and labor requi red, the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, and the skill requisite to perform the legal service properly;

(2) the likelihood, if apparent to the clie nt, that the acceptance of the particular employment will preclude othe r employment by the lawyer;

(3) the fee customarily charged in the locality for similar legal services;

(4) the amount involved a nd the results obtained;

(5) the time limitations imposed by th e client or by the circumstances;

(6) the nature and length of the prof essional relationship with the client;

(7) the experience, reputation, and ability of the lawyer or lawyers performing the services; and

(8) whether the fee is fixed or contingent.-4- defendant’s argument that Smith applies when determining an aw ard of attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1) and that, pursuant to Smith , a trial court must first determine a “baseline” fee by multiplying the reasonable hourly-rate—the fee customarily char ged in the locality for similar legal services—and then adjust the fee upward or downward according to the factors set forth in Wood and MRPC 1.5(a). Id . Unless and until a conflict pa nel determines otherwise or our Supreme Court weighs in on the issue of whether Smith applies to a determination of attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1), we are bound by Univ Rehab Alliance

. 3

In Univ Rehab Alliance , this Court applied the factors set forth in Wood , which specifically dealt with the reas onableness of an award of a ttorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1), as well as the factors se t forth in MRPC 1.5(a). Id. at 698-699. A court is not precluded from considering additional factors, and it “‘need not detail its findings as to each specific factor considered.’” Id. at 699, quoting Wood , 413 Mich at 588. In Univ Rehab Alliance , this Court affirmed a trial court’s attorney fee award und er MCL 500.3148 consistent with the plaintiff’s contingent-fee agreement with her counsel, ev en though it amounted to, according to defendant, “over $1,600 an hour.” Id . at 698. Noting that consideration of a contingent-fee agreement is one of the factors set forth in MRPC 1.5(a) and wa s considered in several other cases assessing a reasonable attorney fee under MC L 500.3148(1), this Court held that “a reasonable attorney fee is determined by considering the totality of the ci rcumstances. While a contingent fee is neither presumptively reasonable nor presumptively unreasonable, multiplying the reasonable number of hours worked by a reasonable hourl y rate [which it dubbed the “l odestar” method] is not the preferred method.” Id. at 700. 4 The Court noted that the trial court employed the required

3 Although plaintiff cites to Prins v Michigan State Police , 299 Mich App 634; 831 NW2d 867 (2013) for the proposition that Smith applies in the instant case, Prins pertained to a plaintiff’s entitlement to attorney fees pursuant to the Free dom of Information Act, and relied on a Supreme Court order in Coblentz v City of Novi , 485 Mich 961; 774 NW2d 526 (2009). Notably, in his dissenting opinion in Smith , Justice Michael Cavanagh criticizedthe majority for leaving unclear the issue of whether Smith applies when determining reasonable attorney fees outside the context of MCR 2.403: “[t]he majority opinion does not defi ne the scope of its ne w law. The majority has articulated a new rule for attorney-fee awards under MCR 2.403; yet that new test’s application to other attorney-fee c ontexts is left for its readers to ponder. . . . does this new rule apply to other fee-shifting provisions?” Smith , 481 Mich at 554-555. The Supreme Court denied leave in Univ Rehab Alliance and has not othe rwise held that Smith applies when determining attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1). Thus, we are bound by Univ Rehab Alliance

. 4 In concluding that the analysis set forth in Smith does not apply to an award of attorney fees under the no-fault act, we acknowledge another panel of this Court’s decision in Augustine , 292 Mich App at 429, wherein the Court opined that the Smith analysis must be applied to an award of attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1). Howe ver, that opinion was non-binding dictum because it was unnecessary to a resolution of that case. See Carr v Lansing , 259 Mich App 376, 383-384; 674 NW2d 168 (2003) (citation and quotatio ns omitted) (“[D]ictum is a judicial comment made during the course of delivering a judicial opinion, but one that is unnecessary to the decision in the case and therefore not precedential . . . .”). At issue in Augustine , 292 Mich App at 413, was whether the trial court followed th e panel’s directive on remand to undertake an-5- multifactor analysis and did not abuse its discreti on awarding the contingent fee as a reasonable fee within the range of reasonable and principled outcomes. Id . at 702.

In light of the conclusi on that the analysis in Smith does not apply, the issue becomes whether, under Univ Rehab Alliance , the trial court’s award of a ttorney fees was reasonable. Because we may only reverse when a trial court ha s abused its discretion, wherein its ruling falls outside the range of reasonable a nd principled outcomes, we affirm the trial court’s attorney fee award. The crux of the trial court’s reasoni ng concerning the reasonabl eness of plaintiff’s attorney fee award was to take into consider ation the results achieve d. Plaintiff requested approximately $200,000 or approximately $40 0,000, depending on whether attendant care benefits were calculated at $12 per day or $ 24 per day. Plaintiff was ultimately awarded $70,237.44, which is approximately 35 percent of a $200,000 award, and approximately 18 percent of a $400,000 award. Thus, as the trial court recognized, the results achieved were considerably less than the amount in question; this was an appropriate factor for the trial court to consider. Univ Rehab Alliance , 279 Mich App at 698-699; Wood , 413 Mich at 588; MRPC 1.5(a)(4). The attorney fee aw ard is also commensurate with what plaintiff’s counsel would receive under the contingent f ee agreement, which is anothe r fair consideration. See Univ Rehab Alliance , 279 Mich App at 699 ; MRPC 1.5(a)(8). Further, a lthough the trial court awarded plaintiff’s counsel considerably less than the amount sought, the trial court expr essly found that not all of the hours expended by counsel in this case were necessary. The tr ial court noted, “I sat through the trial, I watched the depositions, yo u fumbled around, forever, at times, took much longer than it had to take.” Th e trial court was permitted to cons ider the time spent on the case in determining the reasonab leness of the fee award, Wood , 413 Mich at 588, as well as any other relevant factors, such as the a ttorney’s skill and efficacy. In a ddition, the record reveals that the
analysis under Smith in order to determine the reasonablen ess of attorney f ees sought under MCL 500.3148(1). The prior panel in Augustine concluded that the analysis set forth in Smith must be applied to an award of atto rney fees under MCL 500.3148(1). Augustine v Allstate Ins Co

, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 21, 2008 (Docket No. 276537), at 3. On remand, the trial court did not follow the Smith framework. Augustine , 292 Mich App at 427-428. This Court held that the la w of the case doctrine, which applies regardless of the correctness of the prior decision, required th e trial court to follow its directive to undertake the analysis set forth in Smith

. Id. at 428-429. In addition, the panel opined that “even were it not the law of this case as a result of Augustine I, the trial court should have applied Smith, because the framework outlined in Smith is the proper standard to be applied in cases brought pursuant to MCL 500.3148(1) wh en a party seeks hourly attorney fees.” Id. at 429. This conclusion is non-binding dictum because the dispositive issue in Augustine , 292 Mich App at 413, 428-429, was whether the trial court followed the panel’s directive on remand to undertake an analysis under Smith in order to determine the reasonabl eness of attorney fees sought under MCL 500.3148(1). Given that this issue was dispositive, a ny analysis of whether the Smith analysis applied to a fee award under MC L 500.3148(1) is dictum, and, while it may be considered for its persuasive value, it is not binding on this Court. Carr , 259 Mich App at 383- 384. Instead, we remain bound by Univ Rehab Alliance. Accordingly, plainti ff’s contention that the analysis in Smith controls the outcome in this case a nd compels this Court to remand for the trial court to first determine a reasonable hourly rate and reasonable number of hours is without merit.-6- trial court was aware of the remaining factors set forth in Wood and MRPC 1.5(a) because the trial court recited the factors du ring different exchanges with plaintiff’s counsel. Although the trial did not expressly make findings on ever y factor, it was not required to do so. See Wood

, 413 Mich at 588. And, although the trial court did not co mment on every factor, the record reveals that the trial court recognized the appropr iate factors and was cogni zant of the factors in reaching its decision. While a more extensive anal ysis on the record would certainly be helpful for purposes of appellate review, Wood does not require it, and based on the record evidence and the totality of the circumstances , we cannot conclude that tria l court’s ruling was outside the range of principled outcomes. See Edge , 299 Mich App at 127.

III. ATTORNEY FEES FOR SERVICES PE RFORMED ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFF IN HER ROLE AS GUARDIAN AND CONSERVATOR

Attorney Darren Findling repres ented plaintiff in her role as guardian and conservator, but did not represent her in the no- fault action. Plaintiff sought to recover fees owed or paid to Findling as “allowable expenses” under MCL 500.3107( 1)(a). On a partial motion for directed verdict, the trial court concluded, as a matter of la w, that plaintiff could not recover such fees as allowable expenses under the no-fault act. “We re view de novo the trial court’s grant or denial of a directed verdict.” Aroma Wines & Equip v Columbia Distrib Servs, Inc , 303 Mich App 441, 446; 844 NW2d 727 (2013). The trial court granted a directed verdict to defendant because it determined, as a matter of law, that attorney fe es incurred by a guardian could not be recovered under MCL 500.3107. “This Court reviews de novo the proper interpretation of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq. ” In re Carroll (On Remand) , 300 Mich App 152, 159; 832 NW2d 276 (2013).

“A person injured in an automobile accident is entitled to a variety of personal protection insurance benefits—often referred to as PIP be nefits—from his or her insurance carrier under MCL 500.3107.” Id. (citation and quotation omitted). In or der to be compensable, a claim for PIP benefits must fit within certain enumerated categories. Douglas v Allstate Ins Co , 492 Mich 241, 258; 821 NW2d 472 (2012); Johnson v Recca , 492 Mich 169, 173; 821 NW2d 520 (2012). “PIP benefits are payable for f our general categories of expens es and losses: survivor’s loss, allowable expenses, work loss, and replacement services.” Johnson , 492 Mich at 173. See also MCL 500.3107; MCL 500.3108. Two categories are pe rtinent in this case: “allowable expenses,” as set forth in MCL 500.3107(1)(a), a nd “replacement services ” as provided in MCL 500.3107(1)(c).

Concerning “allowable expenses,” MCL 500.3107(1 )(a) provides, in pertinent part, that PIP benefits are payable for “[a]llowable expenses consisting of all reas onable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services a nd accommodations for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation.” “T hat is, the Legislature required no-fault insurers to compensate injured persons for the expenses associated wi th ‘products, services and accommodations’ that were reasonably necessary for the ‘injured person ’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation . . . .” In re Carroll (On Remand) , 300 Mich App at 159-160, quoting MCL 500.3107(1)(a).

In Douglas , 492 Mich at 259, our Suprem e Court explained that:-7- the plain language of [MCL 500.3107(1)(a)] imposes four requirements that a PIP claimant must prove before recovering be nefits for allowable expenses: (1) the expense must be for an injured person’s car e, recovery, or rehabilitation, (2) the expense must be reasonably necessary, (3) the expense must be incurred, and (4) the charge must be reasonable.

Concerning the first requirement, i.e., that the expense is for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation, the terms “recovery” a nd “rehabilitation” are generally understood in accordance with their common meanings, but the te rm “care,” has been the subject of several decisions from our Supreme Court. See, e.g., Griffith , 472 Mich at 532-536. In examining the term, “care,” the Court concluded that “care” that is compensable under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) “must be related to the insured’s injuries.” Id. at 534. The Court also explained that the term “care” must have a meaning that is broader than the meaning of “recove ry” and “rehabilitation,” but not a meaning that is so broa d as to render those terms nugatory:

“Care” must have a meaning that is broa der than “recovery” and “rehabilitation” but is not so broad as to render those terms nugatory. As noted above, both “recovery” and “rehabilitation” refer to an underlying injury; likewise, the statute as a whole applies only to an “injured pe rson.” It follows that the Legislature intended to limit the scope of the term “care” to expenses for those products, services, or accommodations whose provi sion is necessitated by the injury sustained in the motor vehicle accident. “Care” is broader than “recovery” and “rehabilitation” because it may encompa ss expenses for products, services, and accommodations that are necessary because of the accident but that may not restore a person to his preinjury state. [ Id. at 535.]

As explained by this Court in In re Carroll (On Remand) , 300 Mich App at 164, under Griffith

, “if the product, service, or a ccommodation would not have been necessary but for the injuries sustained in the accident, then it is compensabl e as an allowable expense for the injured person’s care under MCL 500.3107(1)(a).” Further, as explained by this Court in In re Carroll (On Remand) :
Notably, the Legislature provided that allowable expenses included expenses reasonably necessary for the care of the injured person ; it did not limit this category to those expenses necessary to care for the injured person’s injury. In its broadest sense, the phrase “for an injured person’s care,” as used in MCL 500.3107(1)(a), can refer to any product, service, or acco mmodation that one might use to provide for another’s well-being. [ Id. at 160.]

In addition to allowable expenses, the Legi slature required no-faul t insurers to cover “replacement services,” which are defined as:

Expenses not exceeding $20.00 per day, reasona bly incurred in obtaining ordinary and necessary services in lieu of those that , if he or she had not been injured, an injured person would have performed during the first 3 years after the date of the accident, not for income but for the benefit of himself or herself or of his or her dependent. [MCL 500.3107(1)(c).]-8- Recently, our Supreme Court has clarified the difference between allowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) and replacement services under MCL 500.3107(1)(c):

Services that were required both before and after the injury, but after the injury can no longer be provid ed by the injured pers on himself or herself because of the injury, are “replacement services,” not “a llowable expenses.” They are services “in lieu of those that, if he or she had not been injured, an injured person would have performed . . . for the benefit of himself or herself . . . .” MCL 500.3107(1)(c). [ Johnson , 492 Mich at 180

. ]

As the parties point out, we have decided sim ilar issues to the one raised in the case at bar, but have not decided the precise issue raised in this case. In In re Carroll (On Remand) , 300 Mich App at 172, we explained that services provided by a guardian could comprise allowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a), provided that such services were reasonably necessary and that they did not otherwise constitute repl acement services under MCL 500.3107(1)(c). In addition, in In re Geror , 286 Mich App 132, 136; 779 NW2d 316 (2009), we concluded that services performed by an attorney on behalf of an injured individual who has had a guardian appointed for him may be compensable as a llowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a).

Although In re Carroll (On Remand) and In re Geror provide some guidance, they do not address the precise issue in this case, i.e., whether an attorney who represents a guardian can recover his or her fees incurr ed in that representation as an allowable expense under MCL 500.3107(1)(a). Thus, we turn to the plai n language of MCL 500.3107(1)(a). The plain language of MCL 500.3107(1)(a) provides, in pertinent part, that allo wable expenses consists of

“ all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably nece ssary products, services and accommodations for an injured person’s care, recove ry, or rehabilitation.” (Emphasis added). The word “all,” is used in reference to the reason able charges that will be compensable, provided that the reasonable expenses are incurred fo r reasonably necessary products, services, and accommodations for a person’s care, recover, or re habilitation. “All” is typically defined to mean “1. the whole or full amount of . . . 2. the whole number of . . . 8. the whole quantity or amount . . . 10. everything . . . . Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (2001). The use of the term “all” in regard to reasonable charge s demonstrates the Legislature’s intent to provide recovery for the full amount of charges, provide d that the charges meet the requirements noted above for allowable expenses. Thus, a lthough the statute places limitations on what may be considered allowable expenses, the plain languag e of the statute does not place restrictions on who may perform allowable expenses. Indeed, the statute contains no prohibitions on the individuals who may recover for se rvices; it simply mandates that the services fall within the term “allowable expenses.” Although the cases di d not consider this same issue, both our Court and the Supreme Court have recognized as much. See Douglas , 492 Mich at 261 (“while the nofault act specifies and limits what types of expe nses are compensable, it places no limitation on who may perform what is otherwis e an allowable expense.”); In re Carroll (On Remand) , 300 Mich App at 169 (citation and quotation omitted) (recognizing “that the no-fault act does not limit who may perform what is otherwise an allowable expens e under MCL 500.3107(1)(a).”).

The plain language of MCL 500.3107(1)(a) compels the conclusi on that the trial court erred when it determined, as a matter of law, that plaintiff could notbe compensated for Findling’s services rendered to plaintiff in her role as guardian and cons ervator. Indeed, MCL-9- 500.3107(1)(a) makes no reference as to who performs services that result in reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services, and accommodations for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation. Rather , it simply mandates that: “(1) the expense must be for an injured person’s care , recovery, or rehabi litation, (2) the expense must be reasonably necessary, (3) the expense must be incurred, and (4) the charge must be reasonable.” Douglas

, 492 Mich at 259. Consequently, purs uant to the plain language of the statute, so long as the attorney’s services on behalf of a guardian or c onservator meet those four requirements, there is no statutory prohibition against an attorney re covering fees for representing a guardian or conservator under MCL 500.3107(1)(a).

In the case at bar, there is no dispute that Findling’s fees were incurred. Thus, the issue becomes: (1) whether Findling’s fees were for Fe ridon’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation; (2) whether Findling’s fees were reasonably nece ssary; and (3) whether Findling’s fees were reasonable. These are normally questions of fact that we review for clear error. See Douglas

, 492 Mich at 247, 265. Because the trial court precl uded admission of Findling’s billing records, which detailed the reasons the various fees were in curred in this matter, th e record is void of any evidence for us to determine whether Findlings f ees were necessary for Feridon’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation, whether Findlin gs fees were reasonably necessary or reasonable, or whether they might otherwise constituted replacement serv ices. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court with instructions to determine: (1) whether Findli ng’s fees were for Feridon’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation; (2) whether Findling’s fees were reasonably necessary; and (3) whether Findling’s fees were reasonable. Inaddition, consistent with our opinion in In re Carroll (On Remand) , 300 Mich App at 172-174, we note that the court should consider whether the fees for Findling’s services fall within the category of “a llowable expenses,” “replacement services” or neither. Findling and plaintiff tes tified that some of Findling’s fees were for managing the funds of the conservatorship. As set forth in In re Carroll (On Remand) , if such activities only pertain to ordinary management services that ex isted before Feridon was injured, such activities would be compensable under MCL 500.3107(1)(c) as replacement services, but they would not be allowable e xpenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a). See id. If the fees were for replacement services, defendant’s liability for such fees would be subject to the $20 per day limit set forth in MCL 500.3107(1)(c), and would be subject to the three-year limitation imposed under the statute. However, if Findling’s fees were for services that went beyond what Feridon required before his injury, they could constitu te allowable expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a). Further, if Findling’s fees did notfall under either category, they would not be compensable.

In reaching this conclusion, we caution that our interpretation of MCL 500.3107(1)(a) does not conflict with a ttorney fee provisions found elsewhere in the no-fault ac t and that this interpretation does not provide another opportunity fo r the recovery of attorney fees in a no-fault action. MCL 500.3148(1) provides that an attorney is entitled to a reasonable atto rney fee award “for advising and re presenting a claimant in an action for personal or property protection insurance benefits which are overdue” “if the court finds that the insurer unreasonably refused to pay the claim or unreasonably delayed in making proper payment.” (Emphasis added). Thus, pursuant to the plain language of MCL 500.3148(1), an award of attorney fees is only warranted for advising a client in an action seeking PIP benefits if PIP benefits are overdue and the insurer unreasonably refused to pay the claim or unreasonably delayed in making proper payment. This should be distinguished from an attorney who represents a guardian/conservator and charges a fee for reasonably necessary products, services, and accommodations for an injured person’s-10- care, recovery, or rehabilitation. Otherwis e, MCL 500.3107(1)(a) coul d be read to allow attorney fees in a manner that conflicts withMCL 500.3148(1). When cons truing statutes, “[i]f statutes lend themselves to a construction that av oids conflict, that construction should control.” Walters v Leech , 279 Mich App 707, 710; 761 NW2d 143 (2008). Accordingly, we do not read MCL 500.3107(1)(a) so as to allow the r ecovery of attorney fees in an action for PIP benefits. Rather, MCL 500.3107(1)(a) only permits recovery of attorney fees if the attorney fees were incurred “for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person’s care, recovery, or rehabi litation[,]” where such services do not constitute an action for PIP benefits.

IV. QUESTION 11 ON THE VERDICT FORM

Next, plaintiff argues that the jury should ha ve been precluded from considering Question 11 on the verdict form, which read, “Will Plaintiff continue to incur allowable expenses in the future?” The jury answered this question in the negative. Plaintiff’s counsel originally requested this question, stating, “I’d like a declarator y, you know, statement to the jury” concerning whether plaintiff was entitled to PIP benefits in the future for Feridon’s attendant care. The following day, after attempting to draft a verdict form that was agreeable to both parties, plaintiff’s counsel again raised th e issue of his desire for the jury to decide whether plaintiff was entitled to future PIP benefits for Feridon’s attendant care. This prompted the following exchange between plaintiff’s counsel and the trial court:

MR. SHULMAN: And then—the other i ssue is the declaration of whether he’s—continues to require the need fo r the allowable services, we want a declaration that he will continue in th e future to require these—these benefits—

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SHULMAN: —and I think it should be a real [sic] simple question, just [sic] does, [“]will plaintiff continue into the future to require the allowable expenses enumerated above.[”]

Following a short recess, the parties submitted a verd ict form to the trial court and indicated on the record that they both agreedto the form as written. The form contained Question 11, the question to which plai ntiff now objects.

“It is settled that error requiring reversal may only be predicated on the trial court’s actions and not upon alleged error to which th e aggrieved party contributed by plan or negligence.” Lewis v LeGrow , 258 Mich App 175, 210; 670 NW2d 675 (2003). Here, because plaintiff expressly requested that Question 11 be submitted to the jury and subsequently failed to object to the verdict form as written, she waived appellate review of this issue. Bonkowski v Allstate Ins Co , 281 Mich App 154, 168; 761 NW2d 784 (2008) (“A party may not waive objection to an issue and then argue on appeal thatthe resultant action was error.”). Indeed, to conclude otherwise would be to allow plaintiff to harbor the er ror, if any, as an appellate parachute. Marshall Lasser, PC v George , 252 Mich App 104, 109; 651 NW2d 158 (2002). Thus, we find this issue to be waived. Id. Moreover, even if we considered the matter, we-11- would find plaintiff’s claims to be meritless. Rose v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co , 274 Mich App 291, 295; 732 NW2d 160 (2006).

Affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.

/s/ Jane M. Beckering /s/ Joel P. Hoekstra