Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77854; Published
Judges Maher, R. B. Burns, and Deneweth; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 146 Mich App 729; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Liability for Excess Economic Loss Caused by Insured Tortfeasors [§3135(3)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed a jury verdict for plaintiff in the amount of $125,000 for work loss in excess of the three-year limitations contained in the PIP provisions of the no-fault statute even though the jury found, as a matter of fact, that plaintiff had not sustained a serious impairment of body function, thereby resulting in a no cause for action on plaintiff’s claim for noneconomic losses. Defendant argued on appeal that the verdict for excess economic loss should be reversed for the reason that it is "factually inconsistent with the jury's concurrent finding that plaintiff had not suffered a serious impairment of body function." The appellate court disagreed, holding that, "Section 3135(2Xc) provides that an injured party may receive damages for allowable work loss in excess of certain daily, monthly, and three-year limitations without any reference to the type or extent of the injury suffered. Thus, it is both legally and logically possible for a person to be entitled to work loss benefits without being entitled to noneconomic losses.... The jury may well have concluded that no particular important body function had been seriously impaired, but that the pain suffered by plaintiff prevented her from working. We do not find this to be factually inconsistent or legally impermissible."
The court also held that defendant was not entitled to a remittitur for the amount of income tax plaintiff would have paid on the income recovered pursuant to her claim for work loss benefits as provided in §3135(2Xc) for the reason that defendant failed to present any evidence concerning plaintiff’s prospective tax status. Therefore, there was no factual basis for reducing plaintiff’s award.
Finally, in footnote 1, the Court of Appeals tacitly approved a jury instruction on serious impairment of body function which is virtually identical to the current Standard Jury Instructions on serious impairment of body function and mental injury.
