Court Opinion

ID: 9713560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:17:29.877779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:19.276167
License: Public Domain

Blair Moody, Jr., J.
(for affirmance). I respectfully dissent. The most reasonable construction of the legislative action in amending MCL 500.3108; MSA 24.13108 to provide for cost-of-living increases for survivors’ loss benefits as well as for *14work loss benefits is that it represents an attempt to quickly clarify the original meaning of the no-fault insurance act rather than to substantively change the law. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to cost-of-living increases on the benefits awarded to her as her husband’s survivor, as initially intended by the Legislature. Given this view, there is no need for this Court to address the equal protection and due process arguments advanced by the plaintiff.
In discussing the effect of an amendment upon the interpretation of a statute, this Court has noted:
"While in many and perhaps most instances it undoubtedly is the legislative intent, in enacting an amendment, to change existing law, there are, as undoubtedly, other instances, particularly if uncertainty exists as to the meaning of a statute, when amendments are adopted for the purpose of making plain what the legislative intent had been all along from the time of the statute’s original enactment.” Detroit Edison Co v Janosz, 350 Mich 606, 614; 87 NW2d 126 (1957).
The uncertainty in the construction of MCL 500.3108; MSA 24.13108 as compared to MCL 500.3107(b); MSA 24.13107(b) is demonstrated by the very existence of this litigation. It is also illustrated by the difficulty the majority has in attempting to explain why the Legislature might have distinguished between work loss benefits and survivors’ loss benefits in terms of cost-of-living increases.
Further, the relative speed with which the Legislature acted when the issue arose lends support to the conviction that the amendment was not meant to change the law but rather to correct an *15unintended mistake or ambiguity. Finally, the enactment of the amendment indicates that the application of cost-of-living increases to plaintiff’s award would not be inconsistent with the purposes of the no-fault act.
Accordingly, I would affirm the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the trial court to require payments of cost-of-living increases for plaintiff’s no-fault survivors’ loss benefits.