Griffith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

odissenting). Today the Court reaches the extraordinary conclusion that food is not always necessary for an injured person’s care. The Court concludes that food is “completely unrelated to [an injured person’s] ‘care, recovery, or rehabilitation’ ” if provided in a home, although it is both necessary and reimbursable if provided in an institution. Ante at 536.

I disagree. The Court of Appeals decision that reached the opposite conclusion twelve years ago, Reed v Citizens Ins Co of America,1 was correct and should not be overturned. It is obvious to me that food should continue to be an…