Wayne County Circuit Court; Docket No. 76-616-964-CK; Unpublished
Judge Horace W. Gilmore; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Non-Stacking of PIP Benefits [§3115(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a written Opinion, Judge Gilmore granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiff allowing him to "stack" two no-fault wage loss policies to reach 85 percent of his actual lost wages or the limits of the policies, whichever was less.
Plaintiff was injured in an accident involving an automobile and his motorcycle. The motorcycle was not insured with a no-fault policy. However, Plaintiff was the named insured of two automobiles in his household, each of which was insured under a separate policy. One vehicle, a Volkswagon, was insured by DAIIE, and the other, a Chevrolet, was insured by Motorland Insurance Company, a wholly owned subsidiary of DAIIE.
At the time of the accident, the maximum monthly no-fault wage benefit was $1,111. Plaintiff’s actual lost wages per month amounted to $2,300, 85 percent of which was $1,977. Therefore, plaintiff attempted to draw benefits under both of his automobile insurance policies so that he could recover 85 percent of his lost wages. Plaintiff was not attempting to duplicate benefits.
Remarking that the issue presented in the case was "one of first impression" Judge Gilmore referred to the previous Court of Appeals opinion in Beaver v Auto-Owners (item number 252). In Beaver, the Court of Appeals refused to permit plaintiff to "stack" two no-fault insurance policies where the amount of the losses sustained were actually less than the separate policy limits of each policy. Stated another way, Beaver prohibited stacking where it would result in duplication of benefits. However, as Judge Gilmore noted, the Court of Appeals in Beaver stated, "In holding as we do, we do not rule out the possibility of similarly situated plaintiffs from recovering under both policies if the injuries are in excess of the policy limits." Judge Gilmore stated that this was precisely the issue in the case at bar and, ruled that plaintiff could stack his two no-fault insurance policies.
Judge Gilmore found the provisions of §3115(3) not to be controlling in this situation. That section is intended to prevent double recovery in fact situations similar to Beaver where the loss is actually less than one of the policy limits.
Judge Gilmore stated, "There is no double recovery. Plaintiff has paid for two insurance policies and is unable to get full recovery from one insurance policy. Therefore, he is entitled to recover from the second insurance policy."
Because there was a "clear dispute of law," Judge Gilmore refused to award attorney fees and interest. DAIIE has appealed the decision.
