Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #320196; Published
Judges Wilder, Owens, and M.J. Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 310 Mich App 522; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Loss of Earning Capacity [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Self-Employed Persons [§3107(1)(b)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the claimant was not entitled to wage loss benefits under MCL 500.3107(1)(b) because, after his accident, he continued to work and earned more than the allowable statutory maximum.
Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident and defendant Home-Owners was his insurer. Plaintiff owned and operated an insurance agency and, although he continued to work after the accident, he asserted he could not “put forth the effort to continue to go to the extra appointment.” Plaintiff claimed he suffered a loss of wages and brought this action against Home-Owners, alleging it had unreasonably refused to pay those benefits. Home-Owners moved for partial summary disposition, offering evidence that plaintiff still made more than the $4,878 per month maximum allowed by §3107(1)(b). Plaintiff responded that, because his wage loss for each of the 30-day periods at issue was less than the maximum of $4,878, Home-Owners was responsible for all his lost income. The trial court denied Home-Owners’ motion for partial summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff was not entitled to wage loss benefits because his income after the accident exceeded the statutory maximum in §3107(1)(b). In this regard, the court said:
“By stating that the ‘benefits payable’ and ‘the income earned’ for the same period ‘together’ shall not exceed the maximum, the Legislature unambiguously provided that a no-fault insurer was obligated to compensate the injured person for the loss of income for work that he or she would have performed were it not for the accident, but only to the extent that the work-loss benefit, when added to the injured person’s income from work performed after the accident during the same period, does not exceed the statutory maximum. … If the income that the injured person actually earns for work performed during the relevant period exceeds the statutory maximum, as is the situation in this case, the work-loss benefit is reduced to zero because the ‘benefits payable for work loss … and the income earned … for work during the same period together’ cannot exceed the applicable maximum. … [T]his is so even though the injured person is able to show that he or she has suffered a loss of income from work that he or she would have performed but for the accident.”
Because the evidence showed that plaintiff earned more after his accident than the statutory maximum, the Court of Appeals held the trial court should have granted Home-Owners’ motion for partial summary disposition.
