Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 117428; Published
Judges Marilyn Kelly, Holbrook, Jr., and Sullivan; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Kelly
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 191 Mich App 12; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion by Judge Kelly, the Court of Appeals upheld the jury verdict which found that plaintiff was entitled to wage-loss benefits under §3107(b) and that the calculation of plaintiff’s wage-loss benefits properly included evidence that his income would have increased following his accident.
For nine years prior to his accident, plaintiff worked for Motorways as a truck driver. In the year before the accident, Motorways was forced to reduce the number of hours that its employees worked. Plaintiff was laid off in January 1986 until June 1986. From May 15,1986, to June 20,1986, plaintiff worked for White, another trucking company. Thereafter, plaintiff was recalled to Motorways where he worked sporadically for nine weeks up to the date when the accident occurred. The defendant paid plaintiff’s work-loss benefits based solely on the amount that plaintiff worked in his last 30 days with Motorways. Plaintiff claimed that under the No-Fault Act, §3107(b), he was entitled to benefits based upon the income that he was earning while working with White. Evidence was offered that White was pleased with plaintiff’s job performance and that if he had not been recalled to work for Motorways there was ample work for White in that plaintiff could have driven trucks continuously for White during the ensuing three years following the accident.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the jury verdict in favor of plaintiff, which was calculated based upon the increased income plaintiff could have earned for White. The court held that the clear language of §3107(b) indicates that an injured person is entitled to the loss of income from the work he would have performed had he not been injured. Nothing in the provision states that the income must be calculated based on the person's earnings at the time the injury occurred. If the injured person is able to show convincingly that he would have changed jobs and earned a higher income, then he should be entitled to increased wage loss benefits.
