Jeffrey D Lynn v. Provident Life and Casualty Company, 328321

Plaintiff (financial advisor) partially stopped working due to Churg-Strauss Syndrome and applied for partial long-term disability benefits under a Provident Life policy; benefits paid for seven months then terminated.
Policy requires at least a 20% loss of "earnings" (not merely income) to qualify for partial benefits; plaintiff conceded no loss of income after June 15, 2014, limiting dispute to Aug 1, 2011–June 15, 2014.
Defendant included Employee Forgivable Loan (EFL) forgiveness amounts (loan forgiveness tied to continued employment) in calculating plaintiff’s prior and current "earnings." These amounts appeared as wages on plaintiff’s W-2s and paystubs.
Plaintiff argued EFL forgiveness is not "earnings" because it is a loan forgiveness/benefit for remaining employed (not earned for work) and objected to reliance on defendant’s financial consultant memo as hearsay.
Trial court admitted the consultant memo as a business record, held EFL payments fit the policy definition of "earnings" (earned for the work plaintiff did and conditioned on continued employment), and granted summary disposition for defendant.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether EFL loan forgiveness counts as "earnings" under the policy	EFL forgiveness is loan repayment/benefit, not income "earned for the work you do," so should be excluded	EFL forgiveness is conditioned on employment, reported as wages and included in paystubs/W-2s, so counts as "earnings"	EFL forgiveness is "earnings" under policy; court granted summary disposition for defendant
Whether defendant’s financial consultant memo was inadmissible hearsay	Memo is inadmissible hearsay and not within business-records exception	Memo is a business record and admissible; but decision does not rely solely on memo	Memo admissible as business record; decision supported by contract language and documents regardless
Whether policy language ambiguous regarding "earnings"	Term is ambiguous and should be construed for insured	Term has common meaning and is not ambiguous; enforce policy terms	No ambiguity; interpret "earnings" by ordinary meaning and include EFL payments
Whether plaintiff established >20% loss of earnings beyond paid seven months	Plaintiff disputes calculation (excluding EFL), implying additional qualifying months	Defendant’s calculations including EFL show only seven qualifying months were paid	Plaintiff failed to show alternate calculation; only seven months met 20% threshold

Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (standard for reviewing MCR 2.116(C)(10) summary-judgment motions)
Henderson v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 460 Mich 348 (contracts and insurance policies must be enforced according to their terms; plain meaning controls)
Caldwell v. Chapman, 240 Mich App 124 (discussing waiver and adequacy of arguments in response to motions)