Court Opinion

ID: 9504355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:56:17.79677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:58.648317
License: Public Domain

CAVANAGH, J.
(concurring). At oral argument it became very clear that defendants’ methodologies in determining reasonableness were never at issue at the trial court level, which accounts for the dearth of evidence regarding those methodologies. Counsel for plaintiff admitted that the reason discovery was not more directed toward illuminating the methodologies was because no one asked plaintiffs before this Court’s leave order to discuss how reasonableness should be assessed. Although I agree with the Court of Appeals conclusion that “reasonable” and “customary” are two separate inquiries, I view its reference to the 80th percentile test, given this record, as dicta. Given that the question of reasonableness was not before the lower courts, and, consequently, discovery did not center on the question, I would be apprehensive about sanctioning any method without knowing its full details. I agree also with the Court of Appeals concurrence that urged our Legislature to address this issue and implement some guidelines in this area, as other no-fault states have done.
KELLY, J., concurred with CAVANAGH, J.