Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #311051; Unpublished
Judges Gleicher, Saad, and Fort Hood; 2-1 (Judge Saad dissenting); Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
Link to Dissent
STATUTORY INDEXING:
PIP Benefits Defined; Waiver of Work Loss Benefits [§3107]
Wage Loss for the Temporarily Unemployed [§3107a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam Opinion (with Judge Saad dissenting) involving plaintiff’s claim for work loss benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3107a, the Court of Appeals ruled that plaintiff, who lost her job and claimed she had a lead on a new job at the time of the auto accident: 1) provided sufficient evidence to support a jury’s finding that she was “temporarily unemployed” within the meaning of §3107a, and 2) did not have to receive an “actual job offer” to be entitled to work loss benefits.
Plaintiff was injured in an accident on Jan. 10, 2009. She had lost her job and intended to formally apply for a new job on Jan. 12, 2009, but the accident kept her from doing so. Plaintiff sued defendant, her no-fault insurer, to recover work loss benefits. Defendant acknowledged that plaintiff had been seeking work when the accident occurred, but disputed whether she would have obtained employment. Defendant claimed that plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof of an actual job offer, precluding her from receiving work loss benefits, and that the evidence did not show that plaintiff was “temporarily unemployed.” A jury awarded plaintiff $38,124 in benefits owed and $42,698.88 in interest for overdue benefits. The trial court denied defendant’s motion for a directed verdict or JNOV.
Affirming the trial court’s decision, the Court of Appeals said plaintiff presented “legally sufficient” evidence of her temporary unemployment. The court explained:
“Section 3107a ‘applies when a claimant suffers an unavailability of work at the time of the accident.’ … An individual may qualify as ‘temporarily unemployed’ if she demonstrates that at the time of the auto accident, she was ‘actively seeking employment and there is evidence showing the unemployed status would not have been permanent if the injury had not occurred.’”
Regarding defendant’s assertion that the evidence showed plaintiff would have been unemployed for the three-year statutory limitations period, regardless of whether the accident happened, the Court of Appeals disagreed and said:
“[V]iewed in the light most favorable to Jones, the evidence supported a reasonable inference that Jones would have obtained employment as a patient advocate had the accident not intervened.”
According to the Court of Appeals, plaintiff “expressed confidence” that she would have been hired for the job, if not for the accident. The court said:
“The trial evidence included the job posting and [the] recommendation that Jones ‘would be a good candidate’ for the position. Whether Jones would have been hired constituted a question of fact. The jury was entitled to infer that based on Jones’s employment record, her qualifications, and the job requirements, the patient advocate position likely would have been offered and accepted.”
As for defendant’s argument that benefits under §3107a must be paid only when a claimant substantiates the receipt of an actual job offer, the Court of Appeals said such an assertion was “legally unfounded.” The court stated:
“Had Jones’s evidence solely consisted of a bare assertion that she would have found employment, the issue would be a closer one. However, Jones produced a job posting and evidence directly corroborating that she planned to apply and was qualified for the position. Viewed in the light most favorable to Jones, a reasonable jury could conclude that Jones was only temporarily unemployed at the time of the accident.”
In a separate dissenting Opinion, Judge Saad said plaintiff did not show any actual loss of income as a result of the accident, as required by §3107(1)(b) and §3107a.
