60th Judicial District Court; Docket No. 81-C-1473; Unpublished
Judge Richard J. Pasarela; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed Or Denied [§3148(1)]
Conduct Establishing Unreasonable Delay or Denial [§3148]
Bona Fide Factual Uncertainty / Statutory Construction Defense [§3148]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written opinion, Judge Pasarela ruled that a plaintiff who sustained disabling injuries in an auto accident that occurred three days before she was to begin her new job at a local grocery store, was clearly and without reasonable dispute entitled to collect no-fault benefits on the basis of the earnings she would have earned from the commencement date of her new job. This was not a case where the plaintiff was seeking recovery of a loss of "earning capacity." The Court stated, "Plaintiff here was currently employed! That she was to begin work the Monday following her Friday accident is of no legal consequence whatsoever. Her employment was no more prospective earning capacity than that of any worker completing one pay period and scheduled to begin another on a fixed date in the future.... There is no requirement in the statute that plaintiff have a work history with the employer covering the immediate past work loss from a new job is just as real as work loss from an old one for pay not yet due."
In this case, the defendant admitted liability at the commencement of trial on the basis of an affidavit received four months prior thereto from a previous employer verifying that plaintiff had been similarly employed in another grocery store prior to the accident. The defendant contended that liability to pay benefits was not established until this fact was known. For the reasons set forth above, Judge Pasarela held that such an interpretation of the work loss provisions of §3107(b) were erroneous. As such, the refusal to pay benefits was unreasonable under §3148(1) and, accordingly, the plaintiff was entitled to recover attorney fees based upon one third of the recovery, interest, taxable costs, and actual costs under DCR 111.6. The Court refused to accept defendant's argument that it made a mistake of law and thus should not be liable for these sanctions. The Court held, "Whether a mistake of law ever could be justification for denying or delaying payment of benefits, this Court need not decide, since it is the mistake itself that is here unreasonable."
