Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 63369; Published
Judges Danhof, Allen, and Hansen; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Allen
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 128 Mich App 135; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Allen, the Court of Appeals resolved a split of authority created by the cases of Krawczyk v DAIIE (item number 546) and Farquharson v Travelers (item number 587). The Court held that medical and hospitalization insurance premium payments normally paid by an employer constitute a "loss of income from work" and are a reimbursable work loss benefit under §3107(b) of the No-Fault Act. In agreeing that the decision in Farquharson was the better result, the Court stated, "we do not believe the legislature intended to exclude fringe benefits from 'work loss' benefits. Fringe benefits are a form of income payable in kind rather than in cash. If fringe benefits paid by the employer are excluded under §3107(b), an employee who receives the cash equivalent of the benefit and buys his or her health insurance would be entitled to reimbursement, but plaintiff, and all others like her, would not.. This is an unreasonable result and one which we do not believe the legislature intended. The Court also stated that exclusion of fringe benefits is contrary to the "broad policy objective of the No-Fault Statute."
