Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 64517; Published
Judges Walsh, Beasley, and Sullivan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 136 Mich App 9; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Wage Loss for Temporarily Unemployed Persons / Qualifications [§3107a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this important unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals shed additional light on the meaning of "temporarily unemployed" as that term is used in §3107a of the No-Fault Act.
The trial court, on a set of stipulated facts granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff on the question of his right to recover wage loss benefits under the temporarily employed provisions of the statute. The plaintiff had been fired from his previous employment on March 12,1980, for reasons of repeated absenteeism. His automobile accident occurred approximately two months later on May 5,1980. He had been employed at his previous job for about one year before his dismissal. Between the date of his dismissal and his accident he applied for employment with four or five potential employers but had not received any employment offers as of the date of the accident.
In ruling that the plaintiff was "temporarily unemployed" within the meaning of §3107a, the Court observed, "although he was discharged from his most recent employment because of repeated absenteeism and had not received any employment offers, he intended to secure employment, as evidenced by his application for employment with four or five prospective employers. The stipulated set of facts tends to show that, unlike the insured party in Oikarinen v Farm Bureau (item number 360) plaintiff’s unemployed status would not have been permanent but for the motor vehicle accident"
The Court also went on to hold that in enacting the temporarily unemployed provisions of the statute, the legislature did not intend that those provisions would only benefit those who were "unemployed as a result of seasonal employment or involuntary lay-offs."
