Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-3931; Published
Judges Cynar, Riley, and T. M. Burns; 2-1 (J. Burns Dissenting)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 83 Mich App 207; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Disqualification for Uninsured Owners or Registrants of Involved Motor Vehicles or Motorcycles [§3113(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a 2-1 decision, Judge Cynar writing for the majority, held that where a deceased would be barred from recovering personal protection benefits under §3113(b) because the deceased was uninsured, the surviving dependents of the deceased would also be precluded from recovering survivor's benefits from the Assigned Claims Facility. In so holding, the Court stated that the purpose of the no-fault law was to insure the compensation of persons injured in automobile accidents by requiring the maintenance of no-fault insurance which provided payment of PIP benefits. The Court stated that survivor's loss benefits under §3108 are intended as a substitute for the work loss portion of PIP benefits under §3107(b) and as such, a dependent survivor's rights to benefits are necessarily dependent upon and derivative of the right of the injured person to receive work loss benefits had he survived. Thus, where the deceased would be barred from recovering PIP benefits under §3113(b) because of his lack of insurance, the surviving dependents are likewise barred.
Judge T. M. Burns, in a strong dissent, disagreed with the majority. Judge Burns stated that survivor's loss is distinct from other personal protection insurance benefits as is evidenced by the fact that it accrues when it is incurred rather than at the time of the accident In addition, Judge Burns argued that in order to be eligible under §3172 (Assigned Claims Facility) a claimant must be a person entitled to claims. The only statutory exclusion applicable here is the one contained in §3113(b) which only deals with persons, not dependents. Inasmuch as the exclusions are personal they should not be expanded. Finally, Judge Burns argued that the majority's opinion renders meaningless the repayment provisions of §3177.
