Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 67512; Published
Judges Allen, R. B. Burns, and Walsh; 2-1; Opinion by Judge Allen
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 129 Mich App 550; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 Opinion by Judge Allen dealing with an issue of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that unemployment compensation (MESC) and trade readjustment (TRA) benefits for which plaintiff did not qualify because he had not worked the required number of weeks during the preceding year due to injuries plaintiff received in an automobile accident, are not "work loss" benefits which plaintiff may recover under §3107(b) of the No-Fault Act The trial court held that no-fault work loss benefits are "payable only for loss of income from work which the injured person would have performed not, however, for benefits to which an employee might be entitled when he is not working." The Court of Appeals affirmed this reasoning.
The Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the unemployment benefits and TRA benefits were is essence a "fringe benefit" of his employment Therefore, plaintiff argued they were akin to "income" which was lost because of plaintiff’s inability to work. In rejecting this argument, the majority stated, "We do not perceive unemployment compensation and job training to be a 'fringe benefit' as that term is commonly understood to mean." Farquharson v Travelers (item number 587) and Kruzel v DAIIE (item number 668) construed §3107(b) as permitting recovery of fringe benefits paid by the employer. Fringe benefits were defined as a form of income payable in kind rather than in cash. Unemployment compensation is not paid "in kind" but in cash. Furthermore it is paid by the government although the employer directly pays a portion thereof. Similarly, TRA benefits are government paid and clearly are not employer type fringe benefits. Moreover, the majority refused to impose a "but for" causation standard, stating that the "but for test is more valid as a test of exclusion rather than a test of inclusion."
Judge Walsh dissented. He stated that unemployment and TRA benefits are earned by the employee by the work he performed during the qualifying weeks. "Therefore, part of the compensation plaintiff would have received for work he "would have performed in the months he was disabled as a result of the accident was entitlement to unemployment and trade readjustment benefits should future economic conditions require layoff. Since he was unable to earn his entitlement to this unemployment income by virtue of the fact that his injuries prevented him from working during the qualifying weeks, he had a right to work loss benefits in the amount of the income he would otherwise have received as a result of his enforced layoff."
