Court Opinion

ID: 9705019
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:54:53.520268+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:07.465044
License: Public Domain

R. B. Burns, P. J.
Plaintiff appeals a declaratory judgment entered in favor of defendant. The trial judge held that defendant had the right to be subrogated to plaintiffs third-party tort claim. We affirm.
Plaintiff, an employee of defendant, was working as a pedestrian member of a sign maintenance crew installing road signs. He was struck by an automobile driven by Gail M. O’Grady and sustained serious injuries.
Defendant paid plaintiff workmen’s compensation benefits of approximately $20,000.
Plaintiff instituted a third-party negligence action against Ms. O’Grady for noneconomic loss under the no-fault automobile insurance act, MCLA 500.3135(1); MSA 24.13135(1). The suit was settled for $25,000 and defendant now claims its right of subrogation.
The major thrust of plaintiff’s argument is that under "no fault” he may only recover for his noneconomic loss, while his compensation carrier in effect is subrogated for its payment for plaintiffs economic losses.
*486Such a result does not seem equitable. However, in Pelkey v Elsea Realty & Investment Co, 394 Mich 485; 232 NW2d 154 (1975), the Supreme Court allowed the defendant to be subrogated for plaintiffs pain and suffering, a noneconomic loss. We are bound by the Pelkey decision.
Affirmed. Costs to defendant.
W. R. Brown, J., concurred.