Perkins v. Riverside Ins. Co. of America, Docket Nos. 71702
Decision Date | 22 May 1985 |
Docket Number | Docket Nos. 71702,71703 |
Citation | 367 N.W.2d 336,141 Mich.App. 379 |
Parties | Nadine PERKINS, Individually and as Guardian of Kuhn C. Perkins, a minor, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. RIVERSIDE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA and Transamerica Insurance Corporation of America, Defendants-Appellants. RIVERSIDE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Nadine D. PERKINS, Individually and as Guardian of Kuhn C. Perkins, Defendant- Appellee, and Janet Louise Perkins, as Guardian of Daniel K. Perkins and Coreen E. Perkins, Defendant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Sinas, Dramis, Brake, Boughton, McIntyre & Reisig, P.C. by George T. Sinas, Lansing, for plaintiff-appellee.
Dilley, Dewey & Waddell, P.C. by Jonathan S. Damon, Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellants.
Before KELLY, P.J., and BEASLEY and STEMPIEN *, JJ.
These cases involve the distribution of no-fault survivors loss benefits under a policy insuring David Norman Perkins, who was fatally injured in an automobile accident on January 25, 1981. The deceased left a modern domestic entanglement. On May 13, 1981, Nadine Perkins filed suit in Ingham County Circuit Court both on her own behalf and as guardian of her minor son, Kuhn C. Perkins, seeking benefits, interest and attorney fees from the defendant-insurer, Riverside Insurance Company (now Transamerica Insurance Corporation of America). Unaware of this action, defendant filed suit six days later in Kent County Circuit Court, interpleading plaintiffs and Janet Louise Perkins, as guardian of her children, Daniel and Coreen. 1 Following consolidation of the cases in Ingham County Circuit Court, plaintiffs and defendant filed motions for summary judgment under GCR 1963, 117.2(3) and all claims were disposed of by an order of summary judgment dated May 19, 1983. Defendant appeals from the order, challenging the trial court's determination of the amount to be set off against the no-fault benefits as well as the trial court's award of interest. Plaintiffs have not filed a cross-appeal. We affirm.
The following facts were stipulated to by all parties, including Daniel and Coreen Perkins. David Norman Perkins was killed in an automobile accident that occurred on January 25, 1981. The accident did not occur in the course of his employment. Prior to the accident, he was married to and living with Nadine Perkins, with whom he had one minor child, Kuhn Perkins. The decedent had previously married and divorced Janet Louise Perkins, with whom he had two minor children, Daniel and Coreen. As a result of the divorce judgment, decedent was required to pay child support for Daniel and Coreen in the amount of $35 per child per week, or $151.66 per child per month.
The decedent was insured under a no-fault insurance policy with defendant which, as a result of his death, provided survivors loss benefits in the amount of $1,870 per 30-day period. Because the decedent had also been employed by the Michigan Department of State Police as a State Trooper for approximately 13 years, he was covered under the Department of Public Safety pension, accident and disability fund act, M.C.L. § 28.101 et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.331 et seq. Upon his death, Nadine Perkins began receiving a monthly pension of $483.60. Also as a result of his death, Nadine, Kuhn, Daniel and Coreen each began receiving $153 per month in social security survivors benefits.
Defendant does not dispute its liability for no-fault benefits. Defendant does, however, contend that the no-fault benefits should be reduced by the amount of the pension received by Nadine Perkins. The trial court rejected defendant's position as do we.
Section 3109(1) of the no-fault act provides:
"Benefits provided or required to be provided under the laws of any state or the federal government shall be subtracted from the personal protection insurance benefits otherwise payable for the injury." M.C.L. § 500.3109(1); M.S.A. § 24.13109(1).
The intent of the Legislature in enacting § 3109(1) was to "reduce or contain the cost of basic insurance" by eliminating duplication of certain benefits. O'Donnell v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 404 Mich. 524, 544, 273 N.W.2d 829 (1979), app. dis. 444 U.S. 803, 100 S.Ct. 22, 62 L.Ed.2d 16 (1979). Assuming that a claimant is entitled to other benefits under federal or state law, the test for determining whether no-fault insurance benefits must be reduced by the amount of the governmental benefit is two-pronged:
(1) the governmental benefit must substantially serve the same purpose as that served by the no-fault benefits, and
(2) the governmental benefit must be payable as a result of the same accident. Jarosz v. DAIIE, 418 Mich. 565, 577, 345 N.W.2d 563 (1984).
If both prerequisites are satisfied, then the governmental benefits are said to duplicate the no-fault benefits and setoff is required. Id., at 580, 345 N.W.2d 563. Under Jarosz, social security old age benefits do not duplicate no-fault benefits.
Nadine Perkins's monthly pension of $483.60 is payable under M.C.L. § 28.107(4); M.S.A. § 3.337(4), which provides:
Nadine Perkins's pension is thus payable under state law and must be scrutinized under the Jarosz test to determine whether it duplicates no-fault insurance benefits.
It is not seriously disputed that both benefits are payable as a result of the same accident. 2 The dispositive inquiry is whether Nadine Perkins's pension serves substantially the same purpose as that served by the no-fault benefits. The trial court concluded that the same purpose was not served by the no-fault survivors loss benefits and the police pension:
We agree with the trial court's analysis. No-fault survivors benefits are designed to replace the loss of income or wages that decedent would have enjoyed had he continued his employment. Jarosz, supra, p. 580, 345 N.W.2d 563. No-fault survivors benefits thus duplicate workers' compensation benefits, Mathis v. Interstate Motor Freight System, 408 Mich. 164, 289 N.W.2d 708 (1980), and social security survivors loss benefits, O'Donnell, supra.
Contrary to the defendant's argument on appeal, however, we find that the State Police pension is intended to protect the decedent's retirement contributions and is not intended to replace decedent's wages. M.C.L. § 28.107(4); M.S.A. § 3.337(4) clearly refers to the pension as a retirement benefit. Under that provision, a spouse is entitled to a pension computed as if the deceased had retired the day preceding his or her death. Further, the pension is referred to as a "retirement allowance" payable to the widow until death only if the trooper had accrued at least 10 years of service.
We find support for our interpretation of M.C.L. § 28.107(4); M.S.A. § 3.337(4) in Teddy v. Dep't of State Police, 102 Mich.App. 412, 420-422, 301 N.W.2d 876 (1980), in which this Court held that recovery of a state police pension does not bar recovery of a workers' compensation award. The Court found that the pension received under M.C.L. § 28.107; M.S.A. § 3.337 is intended as a retirement pension and does not, therefore, duplicate workers' compensation benefits intended to replace income loss. Our opinion extends the analysis one step further: the Michigan State Police pension does not duplicate no-fault survivors loss benefits intended to replace income loss. 3 We...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Skyline Steel Corp. v. AJ Dupuis Co.
...overdue payments on an award of no-fault personal protection benefits (under M.C.L.A. § 500.3142). Perkins v. Riverside Ins. Co. of America, 141 Mich.App. 379, 389, 367 N.W.2d 336 (1985). This Court concludes that both forms of interest are equally recoverable in the context of commercial ...
-
Barnett v. American Family Mut. Ins. Co.
...as the Barnetts, and because it would minimize rather than maximize UM/UIM coverage. Relying upon Perkins v. Riverside Insurance Co. of America, 141 Mich.App. 379, 367 N.W.2d 336 (1985), the court of appeals held that American Family could reduce the Barnetts' UM/UIM motorist coverage by th......
-
American Family Ins. Co. v. Barnett
...the insurance coverage and whether the governmental benefit is payable as a result of the same accident. Perkins v. Riverside Insurance Co., 141 Mich.App. 379, 367 N.W.2d 336 (1985). Here, the benefits under defendants' uninsured motorists coverage and under Social Security disability insur......
-
Cook v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Insurance Exchange
...p. 577, 345 N.W.2d 563.3 404 Mich. 524, 273 N.W.2d 829 (1979).4 Thompson v. DAIIE, 418 Mich. 610, 344 N.W.2d 764 (1984).5 141 Mich.App. 379, 367 N.W.2d 336 (1985).6 5 U.S.C. § 8342(a).7 5 U.S.C. § ...
-
Chapter 2 - § 2.14 • PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES
...to reduce the Barnetts' UIM benefits, the court of appeals relied upon a Michigan case, Perkins v. Riverside Insurance Co. of America, 367 N.W.2d 336 (Mich. 1985). However, the supreme court found that Perkins should not have been applied, because it was based upon a Michigan statute that r......