Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 108177; Unpublished
Judges Sullivan, Sawyer, and Marilyn Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Self-Employed Persons [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curium Opinion, the Court of Appeals denied work loss benefits to plaintiff who worked for his wife's company but received no salary or wages. Plaintiffs wife, Betty Hosking, was the owner and sole proprietor of Hosking Oil Company. Plaintiff worked approximately 40 hours per week delivering oil for the company. He was never paid a wage or salary. The profits of the business went entirely to his wife. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of wage loss benefits on the basis that §3107(b), "confers benefits only for actual loss of income." Although such benefits are payable to those who are self-employed, the court stated that, "a person is self-employed when he earns income directly from his own business rather than a specified salary or wage from an employer." In this case, the facts were undisputed that the company was owned solely by plaintiffs wife. Therefore, plaintiff was not self-employed. The fact that plaintiff shared the fruits of his labor with his wife did not create a "profit sharing plan," contributions to which may be compensable under the no-fault work loss benefits where the contribution is in the form of employee wages. The court stated that the record in this case simply did not support the conclusion that any such profit sharing plan existed.
