United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Case #13-12283
Hon. David M. Lawson
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Opinion Not Available 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this Federal written Opinion, Judge David M. Lawson held as a matter of law that the unemployed plaintiff was not entitled to work loss under MCL 500.3107(1)(b) because “the court [could not] find any evidence of what he would have earned but for the accident.”
Plaintiff in this case was a Michigan resident. Plaintiff was in an accident with a semi-truck driven by an Ontario resident and owned by a Canadian company. After the accident, plaintiff sought work loss, claiming he suffered a closed head injury, neck and back injuries, and other injuries to his shoulders, arms, knees, and chest. Plaintiff asserted that, at the time of the accident, he was pursuing his education. Evidence showed that plaintiff had not performed steady work in the five years prior to the accident and that, when he did work, it was sporadic. Contrary to Michigan case law, plaintiff claimed that he should be allowed to recover work loss for his future earning capacity. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence that he lost income from any work the accident prevented him from performing. Plaintiff, however, asserted there was enough evidence to create a question about his likelihood of future employment.
After applying the longstanding rule that work loss is not compensable for a “loss of earning capacity,” and after concluding that plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence of an actual loss in earnings, Judge Lawson rejected plaintiff’s arguments. In this regard, the judge reasoned:
“Work-loss benefits are meant primarily to provide claimants with simple income insurance and are intended to compensate claimants approximately dollar for dollar for the amount of wages lost because of the injury or disability.’ … [T]he Michigan Court of Appeals held in Soranno v Abbas, No. 296517, 2011 WL 1902077 (Mich App May 19, 2011), that an unemployed plaintiff injured in a motor vehicle accident seeking to recover work loss damages must provide ‘specific evidence of wages that would, rather than could, have been earned but for the injuries.’”
Plaintiff asserted, however, that Soranno should not be followed, insofar as it required proof that actual employment was waiting for an unemployed and injured individual. Judge Lawson rejected this argument and said:
“[P]laintiff must offer some proof of ‘what he would have earned.’ … The plaintiff says that the evidence conclusively establishes that he worked in the past before returning to college and there is no indication that he would never have returned to work but for the accident. The plaintiff argues that the evidence establishes that when he was not actively enrolled in school in the past, he sought out and obtained unemployment compensation.”
However, Judge Lawson said he could not find “any evidence” of what plaintiff would have earned but for the accident. The judge concluded:
“[P]laintiff argues that he was either going to return to school or look for a job. …That is not sufficient to withstand a motion for summary judgment .… The plaintiff’s work history is limited and irregular. … [I]t is conceivable that the injuries he sustained in the accident interfered with [his] plan. However, the plaintiff’s intentions are not proof of work loss sufficient to satisfy the substantive requirements of the no fault insurance act, as it has been interpreted by the Michigan courts. The plaintiff has not supported his excess work loss claim with evidence at this stage of the proceedings, and he will not be able to present the claim at trial.”
