Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 76011; Published
Opinion by Archer (In Part); Riley (In Part); (With Justice Boyle Concurring in Part and Dissenting In Part)
Michigan Official Reporter Citation: 428 Mich 51; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Loss of Earning Capacity [§3107(1)(b)]
General / Miscellaneous [§3107a]
Nature of Survivor’s Loss Benefits [§3108(1)]
Calculation of Survivor’s Loss Benefits and Maximums [§3108(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this decision by Justice Archer, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the widow of an unemployed college student who was killed in a motor vehicle accident on the last day of his last exam in his senior year, was entitled to recover no-fault survivors' loss benefits under §3108 where, after his death, the decedent received a response to an employment application that most likely would have lead to an offer of employment. As a result of that evidence, decedent's widow had factually demonstrated that her husband would have been employed had he not been killed in the automobile accident, thereby entitling her to recover survivors' loss benefits under the statute.
In so ruling, the Court held that entitlement to survivors' loss benefits under §3108 is not dependent upon proof that the decedent was actually employed on the date of death. On the contrary, surviving dependents of an unemployed decedent are entitled to survivors' loss benefits if they can show that they would have received "contributions of tangible things of economic value" for their support had the decedent not suffered accidental death. In this case, the correspondence from the U.S. Forestry Service entitled "inquiry of availability," coupled with testimony from an official of the Forestry Service who said that had the decedent still been interested in the position and able to pass the physical, he probably would have been offered the job, constituted sufficient evidence to satisfy the "would have received requirement" of the Act.
The Court also held that cases involving decedents who are unemployed on the date of death are not controlled by §3107a, which would have the effect of limiting survivors' loss benefits to the last month of full time employment. The Court noted, "Section 3107a makes no reference to survivors' loss benefits
and §3108 does not incorporate by reference the provisions of §3107a. Hence, §3107a does not control §3108 Calculation of survivors benefits is not limited to the decedent's past income."
Finally, the Court noted that, "the No-Fault Insurance Act is remedial in nature and must be liberally construed in favor of persons intended to benefit thereby."
