Legal Opinion · Dissent

Marquis v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity

Michigan Court of Appeals

Decided August 3, 1992No. Docket 133472Published

1DissentGriffin, J.

I respectfully dissent. It is well settled that "work loss” as provided by the no-fault act refers to loss of actual income and not to loss of earning capacity. Ouellette v Kenealy, 424 Mich 83; 378 NW2d 470 (1985). The no-fault act defines work-loss personal protection insurance as follows:

Work loss consisting of loss of income from work an injured person would have performed during the first 3 years after the date of the accident if he had not been injured .... [MCL 500.3107(b); MSA 24.13107(b). Emphasis added.]

In the present case, the majority has confused loss of earning capacity and loss…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. MacDonald v. State Farm Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Coger v. MacKinaw Products Co.Michigan Court of Appeals · 1973
  3. Ouellette v. KenealyMichigan Supreme Court · 1985
  4. Nawrocki v. Hawkeye Security InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1978
  5. Coates v. Michigan Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1981

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API