United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Case #11-cv-11280
Hon. George C. Steeh
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Opinion Not Available 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(c)]
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: The Incurred Requirement [§3107(1)(c)]
Reasonable Proof Requirement [§3142(2)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written Opinion involving a claim for work-loss benefits and replacement services pursuant to MCL 500.3107(1), Federal Judge George C. Steeh ruled that, while the insured may have indeed been injured in an auto accident: 1) the insured could not collect work-loss benefits under §3107(1)(b) because he did not provide sufficient proof of his income for the period of time “immediately prior” to his injury, and 2) the insured could not recover benefits for replacement services under §3107(1)(c) because he did not submit any evidence that he actually “incurred” the expenses.
Plaintiff was sporadically employed as a construction contractor. In 2009, he was injured while driving his vehicle and sought PIP benefits from defendant. Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim, alleging he did not provide reasonable proof of his losses. Plaintiff filed this action seeking coverage. The trial court dismissed most of plaintiff’s claims, with only plaintiff’s wage-loss and replacement services claims remaining. Defendant moved to dismiss those two claims.
Regarding work-loss benefits, Judge Steeh said plaintiff was not entitled to recover such benefits because he did not provide sufficient evidence about his wages immediately prior to the accident in order to establish a record for the earnings that he had lost. The judge pointed out that plaintiff did not file a tax return for 2009 and did not present any 1099s from that tax year. Judge Steeh also emphasized that the 1099 plaintiff did submit for tax year 2005 was “not relevant” to establish lost wages after a 2009 accident. The judge concluded:
“[Plaintiff] has failed to submit any evidence to support his claim that he earned $1,500.00 per week as a construction contractor during the time immediately prior to his accident.”
Regarding plaintiff’s claim for replacement services, Judge Steeh said plaintiff did not produce any evidence of “incurring” such services. The judge noted that three of plaintiff’s witnesses were barred from testifying because they had “evaded” being deposed, and that plaintiff’s claim was “undermined” by his mother, who testified that plaintiff was providing her household assistance while at the same time purportedly incurring replacement services for himself.
Judge Steeh concluded that, although plaintiff may have indeed sustained a viable injury, there was insufficient evidence to support his claims for wage loss or replacement services. Accordingly, plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed in its entirety.
As for the question of whether Farmers was entitled to any reimbursement from Titan, the Court of Appeals said this issue could not be resolved until it was determined whether Titan had effectively rescinded plaintiff’s policy.
Lastly, regarding plaintiff’s claim for penalty attorney fees under §3148, the Court of Appeals said:
“Any remaining question concerning plaintiff’s entitlement to costs, interest, and attorney fees will depend on the resolution of the main issues in this case.”
