Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 75059; Published
Judges Hood, R.B.I. Burns, and Everett; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 138 Mich App 444; Link to Opinion
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of the Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act (UMVARA)
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that "work loss" benefits under §3107(b) were not payable where the family member of a person who became mentally incompetent in an automobile accident rendered services to the incompetent person which consisted of managing his investment income. Plaintiff argued that the incompetent person's "work loss" was his inability to manage his personal investments and the need for substitute services for that management In denying work loss benefits, the Court of Appeals relied upon the drafter's comments in UMVARA which states that "work loss includes not only lost wages, but lost profit which is attributable to personal effort in self-employment (as distinguished from profit attributable in investment) or the cost of hiring a substitute to perform self-employment services." In addition, the Court relied upon the Supreme Court's opinion in Krawczyk v DAIIE (item number 697) which held that work loss benefits are limited by definition to the loss of wage or salary income. Thus, investment income is not included as part of "work loss" and thus, should not be considered in calculating work loss benefits under §3107(b).