Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-2916; Published
Judges Holbrook, T. M. Burns, and Van Valkenburg; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 86 Mich App 221; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: The Incurred Requirement [§3107(1)(c)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a unanimous Opinion by Judge T. M. Burns which affirmed item number 49, the Court held that the maximum monthly work loss benefit allowance under §3107(b) of the no-fault act does not include the $20 daily allowance for expenses incurred in obtaining ordinary and necessary services that the injured person would have performed but for his injury. The Court held that the act provides that benefits are payable for two things; work loss and replacement services, and each is subject to its own separately stated limit The Court noted that its construction of the section in question was supported by the Supreme Court's decision in Shavers v Attorney General (item number 85). In addition, the Court felt that if the defendant's interpretation was accepted "lower first party benefits would be paid and more injured motorists would be required to seek redress under the residual liability section [§3135(2)]. Such an interpretation would be counterproductive to the goals of the act."
