Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 78-648; Published
Judge Walsh, Gillis and T. M. Bums; Opinion by Judge Walsh
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 91 Mich App 189; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature of Survivor’s Loss Benefits [§3108(1)]
Calculation of Survivor’s Loss Benefits and Maximums [§3108(1)]
General / Miscellaneous [§3116]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a rather lengthy Opinion by Judge Walsh, the Court of Appeals made two significant holdings regarding the no-fault law. First, the Court ruled that under §3108 of the statute, survivor's loss benefits are to be reduced by the amount the decedent would have paid in taxes as well as by an amount which would have been used for the decedent's personal consumption. In so holding, this panel of the Court of Appeals ruled expressly contrary to the holding in Miller v State Farm (item number 158).
Second, the Court held that under §3116 of the act, a no-fault insurer was not entitled to reimbursement for previously paid personal insurance protection benefits out of a plaintiff’s tort recovery based on dram shop liability. In reaching this conclusion, the Court analyzed the Supreme Court's decision in Workman v DAIIE (item number 143) and reasoned that the no-fault act addresses only tort liability arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle. The liability of the dram shop defendants did not arise out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of an automobile. Rather, this liability arose from the unlawful selling or furnishing intoxicating liquor to a visibly intoxicated person. Thus, it would "circumvent the legislative process" to extend the provisions of the no-fault statute to a tort liability situation not arising out of its intended scope.
In footnote 7 of the decision, the Court noted that the conclusion would be the same regarding tort actions based upon products liability.
Judge T. M. Burns dissented in part arguing that the conclusion reached in the Miller decision was correct, to-wit; survivor's loss benefits should not be reduced by the amount the deceased would have paid in taxes.
