Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS


LUIGI CHIRCO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v

UNPUBLISHED May 23, 1997

No. 181345 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 93-305733-NF

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Michigan Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

Before: Taylor, P.J., and Markey and N. O. Holowka,* JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right from the trial court's decision granting defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) with respect to plaintiff's claim for no-fault work loss benefits under MCL 500.3107(1)(b); MSA 24.13107(1)(b). We affirm. Plaintiff argues that summary disposition was erroneously granted because genuine issues of material fact existed. We disagree. We review de novo an order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), examining the entire record, including pleadings, affidavits, depositions, admissions and other documentary evidence, and construing all reasonable inferences arising from the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153, 161; 516 NW2d 475 (1994); Fitch v State Farm Fire & Casualty Co, 211 Mich App 468, 470-471; 536 NW2d 273 (1995). Once the moving party has shown that no genuine issues of material fact exist, the opposing party has the burden of establishing through evidentiary materials that a genuine issue of disputed fact does exist. Skinner, supra at 160. We will uphold the grant of summary disposition if we are satisfied that the claim or defense cannot be proven at trial. Fitch, supra at 471.

* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment. -1

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant seeking to recover work-loss benefits pursuant to MCL 500.3107(1)(b); MSA 13107(1)(b), which states in pertinent part: (1)  Except as provided in subsection (2), personal protection insurance benefits are payable for the following: *** (b)  Work loss consisting of loss of income from work an injured person would have performed during the first 3 years after the date of the accident if he or she had not been injured. . . . [T]he benefits payable for work loss sustained in a single 30-day period and the income earned by an injured person for work during the same period together shall not exceed [the statutory maximum], which maximum shall apply pro rata to any lesser period of work loss. "The legislative purpose in providing work-loss benefits to an injured person . . . is to compensate him (and his dependents) by providing protection from economic hardship caused by the loss of the wage earner's income as a result of an automobile accident." Marquis v Hartford Accident & Indemnity (After Remand), 444 Mich 638, 644; 513 NW2d 799 (1994), citing Perez v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 418 Mich 634, 640; 344 NW2d 773 (1984). Indeed, work-loss benefits paid pursuant to MCL 500.3107(1)(b); MSA 24.13107(1)(b) only compensate the injured person for income that he or she would have received but for the accident. Marquis, supra at 645. Thus, in order to be compensable, the lost income must be a direct consequence of the injury that the plaintiff sustained. Id. at 646; Nawrocki v Hawkeye Security Ins Co, 83 Mich App 135, 144; 268 NW2d 317 (1979). In February 1992, the maximum monthly amount for work-loss benefits was set at $3,077, pursuant to MCL 500.3107(1)(b); MSA 24.13107(1)(b) and Insurance Bureau Bulletin 93-95. Plaintiff paid a higher premium, however, to contract for an additional $1,000 of work-loss benefits, so plaintiff was potentially entitled to $4,077 in work-loss benefits a month under

Download LUIGI CHIRCO V FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSUR CO.pdf

Michigan Law