Case Name: MacDONALD v. STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1981-08-18
Citations: 108 Mich. App. 705
Docket Number: Docket No. 51725
Parties: MacDONALD v STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: Before: R. B. Burns, P.J., and T. M. Burns and Cynar, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 108
Pages: 705–715

Head Matter:
MacDONALD v STATE FARM MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
Docket No. 51725.
Submitted March 5, 1981, at Grand
Decided August 18, 1981.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Donald A. MacDonald brought an action against State Farm Mutual Insurance Company seeking to recover work-loss benefits under a no-fault insurance contract because of injuries received in an automobile accident. Plaintiff subsequently suffered a heart attack prior to a decision on his claim, and defendant argued that plaintiff was entitled to work-loss benefits only from the date of the accident until the date on which he suffered the heart attack. Grand Traverse Circuit Court held that plaintiff was eligible to receive work-loss benefits under the provision of the no-fault act and ordered defendant to pay work-loss benefits to plaintiff, William R. Brown, J. Defendant appeals. Held:
The contract of insurance provided that the plaintiff would be entitled to work-loss benefits where he was unable to earn his normal wage as a result of injury received in an automobile accident. Plaintiff was injured in such an accident and the injuries were sufficient to render him unable to work. Other, subsequent and independent injuries which resulted in plaintiff’s temporary inability to earn an income do not make plaintiff ineligible to receive the work-loss benefits.
Affirmed.
Cynar, J., dissented. He would hold that the no-fault act does not provide that work-loss benefits should be paid solely because an insured is injured in an automobile accident but that work-loss benefits should be paid only for the actual economic loss which the insured would have incurred as a result of the injury. Where a subsequent, independent injury otherwise would render the insured unable to work but would not result in actual economic loss because the insured was self-employed and ineligible for workers’ compensation or unemployment benefits, work-loss benefits should not be paid. However, once the insured is recovered from the subsequent injury and is still disabled from the accidental injury, work-loss benefits should be resumed. He would reverse.
Reference for Points in Headnote
[1] 7 Am Jur 2d, Automobile Insurance § 361.
Opinion of the Court
1. Insurance — No-Fault Insurance — Work-Loss Benefits — Statutes.
A contract of insurance, consistent with the provisions of the no-fault act, which provides that an insured is entitled to work-loss benefits where he is unable to earn his normal wages because of an injury resulting from an automobile accident entitles the insured to such benefits where the injuries sustained in an automobile accident are a sufficient cause of his inability to work; other, subsequent and independent injuries which occur during the period in which the insured is receiving work-loss benefits and which otherwise would result in temporary periods of unemployment do not render the insured ineligible to continue to receive the work-loss benefits as long as the original injury continues to be a sufficient cause of the insured’s inability to work (MCL 500.3107a; MSA 24.13107[1]).
Dissent by Cynar, J.
2. Insurance — No-Fault Insurance — Work-Loss Benefits — Statutes.
A person injured in an automobile accident may not continue to collect work-loss beneñts under a contract of insurance, consistent with the no-fault act, during a period of time in which he would otherwise incur no actual economic loss as a result of a subsequent, unrelated disability; however, where the person recovers from the unrelated disability and continues to be disabled due to the accidental injury, work-loss beneñts should be resumed (MCL 500.3107[b]; MSA 24.13107[b]).
Robb, Dettmer & Phillips, P.C. (by George R. Thompson), for plaintiff.
Williams, Coulter, Cunningham, Davison & Read, for defendant.
Before: R. B. Burns, P.J., and T. M. Burns and Cynar, JJ.

Opinion:
T. M. Burns, J.
The factual posture of this case is accurately set forth in Judge Cynar's dissenting opinion.
There may have been any number of reasons why plaintiff could not have worked following the accident. However, as long as his injuries from the accident were sufficient in themselves to preclude him from working, he is eligible for work-loss benefits. Absent evidence that plaintiffs heart attack will result in permanent unemployment, plaintiff is entitled to continued work-loss benefits under MCL 500.3107a; MSA 24.13107(1), inasmuch as it resulted in his becoming "temporarily unemployed during the period of disability ". The attempt by the dissent to distinguish this statute is not persuasive in view of this plain language.
The purpose of the no-fault act is to provide prompt recompense to automobile accident victims for their injuries. Liberty Mutual Ins Co v Allied Truck Equipment Co, 103 Mich App 33; 302 NW2d 588 (1981). Under the scheme proposed by defendant, an accident victim would be entitled to work-loss benefits only for those days which he actually would have worked. Presumably, for those days on which the victim was ill from causes unrelated to the accident, on which he would have been unable to work because of a scheduled, conflicting, personal commitment, or on which he would have been unable to work because of an uncooperative automobile battery on a February morning, work-loss benefits would be reduced. This, of course, would greatly complicate the Legislature's simple plan for speedy payment of benefits.
The contract under which plaintiff was insured by defendant provided that he would be entitled to work-loss benefits if, because of an automobile accident, he was unable to earn his normal wages. An automobile accident has rendered plaintiff unable to earn his normal wages. As long as the injuries plaintiff sustained in the automobile accident are a sufficient cause of his inability to work, other, subsequent and independent injuries which result in temporary periods of unemployment do not make plaintiff ineligible to receive work-loss benefits.
Affirmed.
R. B. Burns, P.J., concurred.