Lapeer County Circuit Court; Docket No. 80-005069-AVC; Unpublished
Judge Martin E. Clements; 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)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
This case is an appeal of the decision summarized in item number 262. In a comprehensive written opinion, Circuit Judge Martin E. Clements affirmed the District Court decision. In so doing, Judge Clements made several significant rulings concerning wage loss recovery under §3107 (b) of the Act:
1. Judge Clements affirmed the District Court's ruling that the loss of plaintiff’s group health insurance coverage which was available to her as a fringe benefit through her employment, was an element that should have been included in plaintiff’s "loss of income" under §3107(b). The plaintiff in this case had lost the health insurance coverage when she was not able to return to work as a result of auto accident injuries. She was forced to buy replacement health care coverage for an additional premium. The monthly cost to plaintiff of obtaining this replacement health care coverage was properly included as part of her no-fault wage loss.
2. Similarly, Judge Clements ruled that the plaintiff’s pension plan should have been included as part of her "loss of income" under §3107(b). Plaintiff’s pension plan was taxable when the contributions were withdrawn. Testimony reflected that $600 was the present taxable amount and that testimony was a sufficient basis for including that sum in the plaintiff’s no- fault wage loss.
In affirming the inclusion of health care costs and lost pensions as part of a claimant's no-fault wage loss, Judge Clements stated, "Nowadays, it is common practice for employers to offer benefits such as pension plans and health care plans to their employees in lieu of increased monetary compensation. These benefits, offered as part of the compensation the employee received for work performed, are advantageous to both employee and employer. The employer can, for example, obtain group health care benefits at reduced cost due to the volume of insurance purchased. Since employees purchasing similar coverage would pay a higher price, they therefore accept health care plans which cost the employer less than the additional wages employees would need to pay for similar coverage. These benefits, although not actually monetary in nature, are viewed as income to the recipient and his employer. To refuse reimbursement for such compensation would result in a denial to the employee of a portion of his income, contrary to §3107(b)."
In passing on the health care benefit question, Judge Clements held that the procurement of substitute health care coverage was not properly compensable as a "replacement service expense." Rather, it was part of loss of income.
Judge Clements also ruled that a district did not exceed its jurisdiction by entering an award greater than $10,000 in a no-fault benefits case, where the plaintiff had started the case in District Court at a time when the no-fault benefits in controversy were less than $10,000. Judge Clements cited a Kent County Circuit Court opinion stating that "where a case is started in good faith in district alleging damages of less than $10,000 but whereby the time the matter comes to trial the actual damages exceed $10,000, the district does not lose jurisdiction."
