Case Name: AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY v. OWENS
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1973-06-27
Citations: 48 Mich. App. 139
Docket Number: Docket No. 14279
Parties: AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY v OWENS
Judges: Before: McGregor, P. J., and Quinn and O’Hara, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 48
Pages: 139–143

Head Matter:
AMERICAN EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY v OWENS
Opinion of the Court
1. Damages — Definition.
The basic concept of damages is compensation for loss sustained from the wrong of another.
2. Damages — Loss Sustained — Subrogation—Insurance—Condemnation.
An insurance company subrogated to the rights of its insured is in no better position than its insured; therefore, even though an insurance company had paid for repairs to a home damaged by the defendants, where the insured homeowner suffered no loss from the wrongdoing of the defendants in that she had been paid full value for the property by a subsequent condemnation award, the subrogee could show no loss and was not entitled to damages.
Dissent by O’Hara, J.
3. Damages — Loss Sustained — Subrogation—Insurance—Condemnation.
The amount of a condemnation award received by an insured homeowner subsequent to payment by the insurance company for damages to the home caused by a tortfeasor has nothing to do with her case or her subrogee’s case against the tortfeasor; a plaintiff who receives bene&ts, whatever the form, from a source independent of the wrongdoer does not thereby diminish the damages otherwise recoverable from the tortfeasor.
Appeal from Saginaw, Hazen R. Armstrong, J.
Submitted Division 3 April 4, 1973, at Lansing.
(Docket No. 14279.)
Decided June 27, 1973.
Leave to appeál denied, 390 Mich —.
Complaint by American Employers Insurance Company as subrogee of its insured, Mary T. Wedding, against James Owens and Shirley Owens for damages. Judgment for plaintiff in part and for defendants in part. Plaintiff appeals.
References for Points in Headnotes
22 Am Jur 2d, Damages §§ 1, 5,11.
22 Am Jur 2d, Damages § 211.
Affirmed.
Chaklos, Jungerheld, Hoffman & O’Neill, for plaintiff.
Collison & Fordney, for defendants.
Before: McGregor, P. J., and Quinn and O’Hara, JJ.
Former Supreme Court Justice, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment pursuant to Const 1963, art 6, § 23 as amended in 1968.

Opinion:
Quinn, J.
Plaintiff appeals from a judgment which disallowed $2,904.35 of its claim against defendants.
The facts are not disputed. Plaintiff insured the home and contents of Mary T. Wedding. This home was adjacent to the Masonic Hall and both properties had been condemned. The Wedding home was appraised in the condemnation proceedings on February 27, 1967, at $21,600. The condemnor had offered $19,000 which was not accepted.
Defendants were razing the Masonic Hall. On January 31, 1968, a wall of the hall collapsed damaging the Wedding house. Thereafter, plaintiff paid Mary T. Wedding $3,980.35 in personal and property damage claims of which $2,904.35 was for damage to the home. Mary T. Wedding executed a subrogation agreement to plaintiff.
The only repairs made to the Wedding house were temporary and she continued to live in it. In October 1968, Mary T. Wedding was awarded $21,-600 as compensation for the taking of her property_
Plaintiff filed this action as subrogee of Mary T. Wedding on February 27, 1969. Following trial, the trial court found that plaintiff had proved no damages with respect to the Wedding house because of the condemnation proceedings and disallowed the $2,904.35 that plaintiff had paid to Mary T. Wedding for damages to the house.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court used the wrong measure of damages; that the damages to the house were repairable and the proper measure of damages was the cost of repairs which was proven; plaintiff cites authority supporting this position. We agree with plaintiff's position on the proper measure of damages, but that does not establish that the trial court was wrong in the result that it reached.
The basic concept of damages is compensation for loss sustained from the wrong of another. In each of the authorities relied on by plaintiff, loss was shown and the measure of damages question was reached. If no loss is shown, the measure of damages question is irrelevant. In this case the loss we are concerned with is the loss, if any, shown to have been suffered by Mary T. Wedding because of defendants' wrongdoing.
Plaintiff is in no better position than Mary T. Wedding, Hardware Dealers Mutual Insurance Co v R H Hidey, Inc, 349 Mich 490; 84 NW2d 795 (1957). At the time this action was filed, Mary T. Wedding had suffered no loss from the wrongdoing of defendants; she had been paid full value for the property which was damaged.
Relying on Squires v Kalamazoo County Road Commissioners, 378 Mich 613; 147 NW2d 65 (1967), plaintiff next argues that defendants cannot benefit from the fact that Mary T. Wedding was indemnified by the condemnation award. We do not accept this argument because if loss has not been shown, the question raised by this argument is never reached.
Affirmed with costs to defendants.
McGregor, P. J., concurred.