At the time of the second accident, plaintiff was insured with defendant under a policy in his wife's name. Plaintiff filed suit alleging that defendant failed to pay plaintiff's personal protection insurance benefits, including lost wages. At trial, defendant moved for a directed verdict on the wage loss claim, contending that plaintiff had presented insufficient proof of actual wage loss. After entry of judgment, defendant moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on plaintiff's claim for lost wages, and alternatively for remittitur or new trial, contending the award for lost wages was unsupportable. Defendant appeals from the wage loss and related portions of the judgment.
Defendant is correct as a matter of law.
Here, the record shows that plaintiff sought employment several months prior to the accident, but plaintiff failed to produce any evidence that he was actively seeking employment at the time of the accident in July, 1992. Further, plaintiff had not worked since August, 1988. Plaintiff's statement of intention to begin a new career as a CAD operator is insufficient to establish that he was temporarily unemployed. Gamby's testimony that plaintiff would have been employed at some later date is undercut by plaintiff's failure to actually do something to seek employment. Not having been employed for four years and not having sought employment for eight months, it defies logic and is contrary to the statutory language to conclude that plaintiff was temporarily unemployed.