Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Gulley v State Farm; (53rd Dist; 10/7/1985; RB #894)

Print

53rd District Court for the County of Livingston; Case No. 84-1986-CZ; Unpublished    
Judge David G. Gee  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt   


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
Not Applicable

TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable   


CASE SUMMARY:   
In this oral Opinion from the bench, Judge Gee denied no-fault work loss benefits to plaintiff under the "temporarily unemployed" provisions of §3107a for the reason that plaintiff, who was unemployed as of the date of the accident, had voluntarily quit her last job as opposed to being involuntarily terminated. The court primarily relied on the Supreme Court's recent opinion in MacDonald v State Farm (Item No. 754) for the proposition that the temporarily unemployed provisions of §3107a are intended primarily to refer to the "unavailability of employment." In this case, the court emphasized that plaintiff "quit her job of her own volition," was not foreclosed from available employment, was not laid off, was not on strike, was not the victim of a plant closing and cited no other facts which would indicate why it was difficult for plaintiff to obtain alternative employment.

[Author's Comment: This opinion appears to draw a distinction that no previous appellate court opinion has yet articulated, i.e., an employee who is fired from a job is entitled to benefits under the temporarily unemployed provisions of §3107a, but one who voluntarily quits, for whatever reason, is not. It is respectfully submitted that this distinction is not well founded. It could very well result in rewarding an irresponsible employee who is terminated from a job a few days before an accident but yet deny benefits to someone who has been a long-time productive member of the work force who voluntarily quits to look for another position that would better his or her economic status. Appellate case law on this section of the act seems to focus on the plaintiff’s work history, plaintiff’s intentions to return to work and the existence of objective evidence supporting plaintiff’s subjective intentions to find new employment.]


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram