Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 65227; Published
Opinion by Williams; 6-1 (with Moody for affirmance)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 414 Mich 1; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
Calculation of Survivor’s Loss Benefits and Maximums [§3108(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 6-1 Opinion by Justice Williams, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that the original version of the No-Fault Statute did not violate equal protection or due process by providing for cost-of-living increases for no-fault work loss benefits under §3107(b), but failing to provide such increases for survivor's loss benefits under §3108. The Court held that the appropriate test in determining whether socioeconomic legislation enacted pursuant to the state's police power comports with due process and equal protection guarantees is whether the legislation bears "a reasonable relation to a permissible legislative objective." In this case, the Court said that there are at least two "distinguishing features between the two categories that could justify the legislature's discretion in treating them differently." First, under §3107(b) recipients of work loss benefits receive less "spendable" benefits because they must share them with the disabled person. Obviously, this does not occur in survivor's loss benefits because the injured party is deceased. Second, the Court noted that in Miller v State Farm, it was recognized that survivor's loss benefits are broader than wage loss by virtue of the fact that they compensate for losses of "contributions of tangible things of economic value." Additionally, the Court noted that it has previously recognized the legislative objective of containing premium costs of no-fault insurance and the statutory treatment of cost of living increases cannot be said to be unreasonably related to that objective.
Justice Moody dissented and held that the prompt legislative amendment to the statute requiring cost of living increases for survivor's loss benefits should be interpreted as an attempt by the legislature to clarify the original meaning of the Act rather than to substantively change the law. Under such an analysis, the constitutional analysis would not be required and the Court of Appeals should be affirmed on the basis of statutory construction.
[Author's Comment: This opinion reverses the Court of Appeal's opinion in item number 311.]
