Penny Jo Johnson v. John Recca

Summary

The Michigan Supreme Court held that expenses for replacement services are not recoverable in a third-party tort action under MCL 500.3135(3)(c) because that provision lists allowable expenses, work loss, and survivor's loss but does not list replacement services. The Court relied on the statute's clear language and its separate organization of replacement services as a distinct category of personal protection benefits. Justice Hathaway, dissenting, would have construed the no-fault act as a whole to preserve recovery of excess replacement-service expenses and avoid allegedly chaotic results.