Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 112781; Unpublished
Judges Gribbs, Shepherd, and Doctoroff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Children as Dependents [§3110(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's denial of no-fault survivors' loss benefits, and held that a posthumous illegitimate child is entitled to survivors' loss benefits under the no-fault act.
In this case, 17-year old decedent, David Palmer, was killed in a motor vehicle accident on December 31, 1984. On August 6, 1985, Autumn Palmer (plaintiff) was born. Plaintiff alleges that decedent was her father, that he acknowledged paternity of her prior to his death, and that he had plans to marry her mother. Defendant did not contest paternity at trial.
Plaintiff claimed entitlement to no-fault survivors' loss benefits under §3110. Defendant denied plaintiffs claim, contending that a posthumous child does not qualify as a "dependent" under the No-Fault Act.
In reversing the trial court's denial of benefits, the Court of Appeals held that posthumous illegitimate children are entitled to survivors' loss benefits, and that it was error for the trial court to dismiss plaintiffs claim on summary disposition. Although not dispositive in this case, the Michigan Supreme Court has held that posthumous illegitimate children are entitled to survivors' loss benefits under the Dram Shop Act and a variety of other statutory provisions, including the Workers' Compensation Act. LaBlue v Specker, 358 Mich 558 (1960), and cases cited therein.
The Court of Appeals was also persuaded by a Minnesota case, Dahle v Aetna Casualty & Surety Insurance Company, 352 NW2d 397 (MN 1984). In that case, a statute similar to the Michigan No-Fault Act was interpreted to allow for no-fault survivors' loss benefits to the unborn children of decedent, who are presumed to be dependent upon their parents.
In a related issue, the court held that benefits should not be denied solely because the decedent was unemployed at the time of the fatal accident In this case, there was evidence that decedent had entered into an employment contract which required him to report for duty in June 1985. Plaintiff submitted sufficient evidence to establish a survivors' loss benefit, and therefore, summary disposition was inappropriate.
