Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 30393; Unpublished
Judges Quinn, V. J. Brennan, and Bosnian; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Calculation of Survivor’s Loss Benefits And Maximums [§3108(1)]
Social Security Survivor’s Benefits [§3109(1)]
Injured Person and Dependents as Payees [§3112]
General / Miscellaneous [§3116]
Reasonable Proof Standard [§3142(1)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Overdue [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In an unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals:
(a) agreed with the holding of Murray v Ferris, 74 Mich App 91 (1977), that §3116 of the no-fault statute violates due process and equal protection by requiring that an injured person reimburse his no-fault carrier out of a tort recovery for economic losses paid to the injured person. The Court held it makes no difference if the monies received from the tortfeasor were for noneconomic losses or for those economic losses which succeed the limits of PIP benefits; (b) agreed with the holding of O'Donnell v State Farm, 70 Mich App 487 (1976), and Wysocki v DAIIE, (released August 22,1977) and held that the son of a deceased mother should not have his no-fault survivors benefits reduced by his social security benefits as is permitted by §3109 of the no-fault statute; (c) upheld the trial court's findings that the deceased's child incurred substituted service expenses pursuant to §3108 in the amount of $10 per day upon the death of his mother, in that the trial court's finding was supported by testimony on the record; (d) upheld the trial court's refusal to award twelve percent interest on overdue PIP payments and award attorney fees on the basis that the Plaintiff had not supplied the no-fault carrier with reasonable proof from which it could determine the amount due. Inasmuch as the Plaintiff has this burden under §3148 of the no-fault statute, where the Plaintiff does not provide such proof, his benefits never become overdue; (e) upheld the trial court's finding that where a husband did not, live with his wife at the time of her death, there was no dependency within the context of §3112 of the no-fault statute.
