Pietroczewski v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, Docket No. 100264
| Decision Date | 01 February 1989 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 100264 |
| Citation | 173 Mich.App. 37,433 N.W.2d 316 |
| Parties | Adam PIETROCZEWSKI, for Himself and on Behalf of all Persons similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Jerry R. Swift, P.C. by Colleen M. Broderick, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
Brandt, Hanlon, Becker, Lanctot, McCutcheon, Martin & Schoolmaster by David J. Lanctot, and John A. Lydick, of counsel, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.
Before McDONALD, P.J., and HOLBROOK and THOMAS, * JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an April 9, 1987, order granting defendant's cross motion for summary disposition. We reverse.
Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on May 12, 1985, and received no-fault benefits from his insurer, defendant Auto Club Insurance Association. The only issue to be determined on appeal is whether defendant erred in calculating plaintiff's work loss benefits due to an erroneous interpretation of § 3107(b) of the Michigan no-fault statute. M.C.L. § 500.3107(b); M.S.A. § 24.13107.
Section 3107(b) reads in part:
"The benefits payable for work loss sustained in a 30-day period and the income earned by an injured person for work during the same period together shall not exceed $1,000.00, which maximum shall apply pro rata to any lesser period of work loss."
Since the maximum work loss benefit is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the cost of living, the work loss maximum was $2,347 for the period October 1, 1984, to September 30, 1985. Plaintiff's purchase of an additional $1,000 in work loss benefits coverage increased plaintiff's maximum benefit to $3,347.
Following the accident, plaintiff missed work from May 13, 1985, through June 2, 1985. Plaintiff claims he was entitled to work loss benefits of $2,317.14. Plaintiff arrived at this sum by dividing the total maximum benefit allowable, or $3,347, by the number of days he normally worked in a thirty-day period, or twenty-six. The sum derived, $128.73, was then multiplied by eighteen, the number of days plaintiff was unable to work. Thus plaintiff argues he is entitled to $2,317.14.
Defendant paid plaintiff benefits in the amount of $2,024.68. Defendant does not dispute plaintiff's computation of $2,317.14, but argues that plaintiff has failed to complete the calculation. According to defendant, after the maximum benefit is divided by the number of regular workdays, and multiplied by the days actually missed, any income earned by the claimant within the thirty-day period of the accident must be added to the work loss benefits. Thus defendant argues because plaintiff worked for eight days following his eighteen-day work loss, and within thirty days of the first day missed, his earnings for these eight days, figured at $1,322.32, must be added to the maximum benefit payable for the time missed from work, $2,317.16, totalling $3,639.48. From this figure the maximum benefit allowable for the entire thirty-day period as noted above, $3,347, was subtracted. The remainder, $292.48, was the amount deemed to have been earned in excess of the maximum benefits payable for the...
To continue reading
Request your trial