Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 327076; Published
Judges Stephens, Beckering and Gleicher; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature of Survivors’ Loss Benefits [§3108(1)]
Calculation of Survivor’s Loss Benefits and Maximums [§3108(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that old-age social security benefits pursuant to 42 USC 402 can be used to calculate survivors’ loss benefits under MCL 500.3108(1), because social security benefits are “tangible things of economic value” within the meaning of the No-Fault Act.
Plaintiff’s husband, Nicholas Scugoza, died due to injuries he sustained in a car accident. At the time of his death, Nicholas was entitled to $1,611.90 each month in social security benefits. After the accident, plaintiff sought no-fault survivors’ loss benefits from defendant, Metropolitan Direct Property and Casualty Company, pursuant to §3108(1) of the No-Fault Act. Defendant denied the claim, and plaintiff brought this action, arguing that defendant wrongly refused to pay the survivors’ loss benefits for which she was eligible and entitled to receive. Plaintiff moved for partial summary disposition, claiming there were no genuine issues of material fact and that, as a matter of law, survivors’ loss benefits under §3108(1) included a calculation of old-age social security benefits a deceased spouse had been receiving prior to death. Section 3108(1) says:
“[P]ersonal protection insurance benefits are payable for a survivor’s loss which consists of a loss, after the date on which the deceased died, of contributions of tangible things of economic value, not including services, that dependents of the deceased at the time of the deceased’s death would have received for support during their dependency from the deceased if the deceased had not suffered the accidental bodily injury causing death and expenses, not exceeding $20.00 per day, reasonably incurred by these dependents during their dependency and after the date on which the deceased died in obtaining ordinary and necessary services in lieu of those that the deceased would have performed for their benefit if the deceased had not suffered the injury causing death.”
Plaintiff argued that social security benefits are similar to a pension, and are a “tangible thing of economic value” under §3108(1). The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion, ruling that §3108(1) includes social security payments.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that old-age social security benefits are part of no-fault survivors’ loss benefits under §3108(1). At issue was the meaning of the phrase “contributions of tangible things of economic value,” and whether the plain meaning of this phrase included the social security benefits that Nicholas had been receiving.
In its analysis, the Court of Appeals noted that none of the terms in the phrase “contributions of tangible things of economic value” are defined in §3108(1). Therefore, the Court turned to dictionary definitions, finding that the phrase refers to “something that is capable of being valued or having its worth ascertained.” Relying on this definition, the Court said:
“[I]t is … apparent that the old-age social security benefits at issue in this case fit within the plain language of the statute. Indeed, the benefits are capable of being valued and do in fact have a ‘rate of worth.’”
The Court of Appeals also looked to the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Miller v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 410 Mich 538 (1981), where the Supreme Court interpreted the meaning of the phrase “contributions of tangible things of economic value.” Relying on Miller, the Court of Appeals said:
“We find that the Supreme Court’s interpretation of MCL 500.3108 in Miller supports the conclusion that old-age social security benefits are to be included in the calculation of survivors’ loss benefits under the no-fault act. As noted, old-age social security benefits are intended to function as a means of financial support or income for recipients. Therefore, as with ‘wage or salary income [, which] is almost always a significant factor in calculating the actual financial loss incurred by survivors[,]’ Nicholas’s old-age social security benefits were ‘tangible things of economic value’ available for dependents’ support.”
Based on the foregoing, the Court of Appeals said that Nicholas’s social security benefits were “tangible things of economic value” that were “lost” to plaintiff “by reason of [his] death.” According to the Court:
“As the Supreme Court stated, ‘the Legislature intended that the measurement of [MCL500.]3108 survivors’ loss benefits should include the value of tangible things other than, and in addition to, wages and salary.’ … If the Legislature had intended to exclude governmental benefits from survivors’ loss benefits under MCL 500.3108, ‘it could be expected to have said so.’”
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that Nicholas’s old-age social security benefits were included within plaintiff’s survivors’ loss benefits under §3108(1), and it affirmed the trial court’s granting of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff.
