Miller v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

410 Mich 538 538 AUTOMOBILEINSURANCE FARM MUTUAL MILLER v STATE COMPANY 13). (Calendar 9, 62962, Argued January No. 1980 Nos. 62963. Docket 10, 1981. Rehearing h. 411 Mic denied Decided March Miller, of Dennis as next friend for herself and Linda Saltzman children, surviving depen- Saltzman, her minor and Karla Saltzman, automobile killed in an who was dents of Carl accident, against brought Farm Mutual Auto- State an action Company no- under a for survivors’ benefits Insurance mobile policy. his the decedent’s At the time of fault insurance per had refused the gross pay State Farm $806 month. was family plaintiffs’ $614 received for benefits because claim benefits, Security ex- which per in Social month "consump- taxes and a net income after ceeded the decedent’s personal percent 22 decedent’s tion factor” of Court, Joseph E. A. Robert The St. Circuit had been deducted. plaintiffs, finding J., granted judgment Boyle, for the Security bene- to set off Social was not entitled defendant family fits, should survivors’ benefits for the no-fault [1, 6, 7, ^[3] [5,14] 22 [2, [13] [16, [10] [11, [9,18, [8, 9,15,17, ^{[21] [19]} Validity 22 Am Jur Pension, 22 Am Jur 4] 22 Am Jur 42 ALR3d of ALR2d 22 AmJur 22 19, 21, 12] 7 Am 20, deceased, Am Am Am 17] Am 23] Am and construction retirement 22] 7 Am Jur 2d Jur Jur Jur Jur 949. 22] 2d, 2d, 22 Am Jur Jur 2d, 229. 73 Am Jur 2d, Jur 2d, 2d, 2d, 2d References 7 Am Jur 2d Death Death 152 as Death 2d, Death 154. (rev), Death §§ Statutes 2d, Statutes affecting Deat 211. Death 69. income, §§ § Atuomobile Insurance (Rev), § 2d, § 2d, 152 et 153, 154. § §§ of "no-fault” automobile 29, Death § (Rev), et § 145. recovery by parent Statutes 170,171. Automobile Insurance § social seq. 60 et Points in seq. Atuomobile insurance § 153. seq. security payments, and the 194. Headnotes § 340. in death insurance 363. 340. action. plans. like, 81 State Farm v Ins equal gross 25, pay, decedent’s and that after June 1976, remarriage, the date of Mrs. Saltzman’s the defendant per pay $403 should month each of the two Saltzman Appeals, P.J., Beasley, children. The Court E. and D. Hol- (G. brook, Cook, J., concurring), reversed, holding J. R. gross by "personal decedent’s income should be reduced a consumption by any adjustment factor” but not to for taxes payable plaintiffs determine the benefits the and that Social Security against set survivors’ benefits could be off the no-fault Supreme benefits in a accordance with decision of the Court in (Docket 78-512). parties appeal. the meantime No. The In an opinion by Ryan, joined by Fitzgerald Justice Justices and Moody, by except remarriage and Justice Williams as to the question, remarriage question by and in on concurred the Levin, joined by Justice Chief Justice Coleman and Justice Kavanagh, Supreme the Court held: provides 1. The no-fault insurance act that survivors’ benefits tangible things consist of "contributions economic value” dependents support which the would have received for from the injury. primary if he deceased had not suffered the and generally meaning suggests understood the words that the paid by amount of benefits to be is determined the amount income, gross family’s deducting expendi- which constituted the purposes support dependents. tures for all other than Nothing statutory suggests language in the the fund is wages. today’s complex system, limited to In economic the support many persons which contribute to their only wages hospital includes not but and medical insurance benefits, coverage income, disability pensions, investment annu- ity income and other Had benefits. the intended to eligible dependents limit survivors’ benefits to what the would alone, wages salary expected have received from it could be which, language to have said so. It chose instead far broader on face, suggests family its the inclusion of benefits derived for support from other sources. legislative history provision 2. The of this of the no-fault act should, indicates an intent that survivors’ benefits at least roughly, correspond damages wrongful the recoverable under loss, death act for economic which include loss of financial support from the deceased and the loss services that survivor would have received from the deceased had he lived. Damages wrongful depend upon death the financial loss actually by incurred a the survivors as result of the decedent’s Certainly, wages salary death. the decedent’s income from or always significant calculating almost a factor the actual Mich However, by loss also incurred survivors. financial loss fringe any employment-related and other includes dependents. The value of items available for the measuring into account items must be taken such cases, many will the total amount exceed In survivors’ benefits. case, however, wages salary. or In this the income from allegation any plaintiffs no evidence of and offered made no support by the decedent other than his to their contributions Therefore, properly wages. the trial court limited from income wages. gross income from calculation Appeals statutory provi- on the Reliance the Court of 3. adjustment loss benefits and the tax of work sion provision benefits to decide that for survivors’ absence of such the amount of benefits should not reduced paid misplaced. have was taxes that the decedent would income definition, limited, by to the loss of benefits are Work loss taxable, They salary. wages while the or are not income from replace they would be taxable. The tax lost income which cases, adjustment operates equitably, in where taxable most replaced loss benefits. Survivors’ benefits income is work wage salary other than income. include the value of items taxable; cases, many are In the items which are included cases, may only involve non-taxable the survivors’ loss some inescapable liability is with income an items. Tax associated unrealistic, in measur- fact modern economic life. It would be of surviving depen- ing actually by the financial loss incurred dents, dependents acknowledge surviving would to to that fail part support not for their that the decedent’s have received required pay he have in taxes. income that would been Moreover, accurately adjustment for be based on the taxes can information, unnecessary readily admin- ascertainable without disputes. statutory language delays istrative or factual The the loss consists of amounts that "would survivors’ Legislature received” for establishes that the have be intended that the amount of survivors’ benefits should adjusted paid that the have on taxable for taxes deceased would calculation, items included the benefit and it was error to in rule otherwise. benefits, concerning statutory provision 4. The proposals, consideration of at two alternative was after least proposals, of the enacted without the clause contained one expenses "less of the survivors avoided reason of the dece- Legislature logical is the dent’s death”. It to conclude reason, likely the the clause for a and most reason eliminated preclude of the survivors’ was that it wished to reduction v State Farm Ins "consumption the decedent’s factor”. The insurer say asks the Court to hold that the meant to not only say explicitly, explicitly what it did not but it what rejected. goal system provide The is no-fault insurance assured, adequate, victims of vehicle accidents motor with and prompt reparation for certain economic losses. The no-fault act designed delays to minimize administrative and factual disputes goal expeditious that would interfere compensation damages suffered in motor vehicle accidents. Calculation, case, every "consumption of a factor” attribut- personal expenses able to decedent’s would be inconsistent legislative purpose expeditious with the declared settlement complex controversy. of survivors’ claims without A factual family enterprise; is not run a like commercial if the family of a which are attributable to the decedent can be all, calculated at such factual determination would involve controversy disproportionate expense, interminable and likely such amount of a reduction is to be small in most Therefore, cases. the calculation of the survivors’ benefits adjustment personal consumption should not include an for the expenses of the decedent. (Justice part.) 5. purposes did Williams not concur this For qualification benefits, dependency for survivors’ is deter- mined the relation of the claimant to the deceased at However, time of the death. the no-fault act declares that occurs, injury survivors’ benefits accrue not when the but as Upon the survivors’ loss is incurred. the occurrence of certain events, specified including remarriage dependent of a sur- viving spouse, qualification for survivors’ benefits termi- nates, incurred, longer that survivor’s individual loss is no necessary payable it is to consider the amount of benefits remaining surviving dependents. proper thereafter The is to method reduce the survivors’ benefits when one of them is disqualified only by the contributions that the deceased would solely disqualified dependent. have made for the benefit of the family Contributions which benefit the as a whole would Further, adjustment aggre- affected. should be made to the gate of the survivors’ loss at the time of the decedent’s application ceilings. judgment before statutory plaintiff remarriage the trial court as to the effect Miller’s on remaining dependents the survivors’ benefits for the is re- versed. Levin, joined by Justice Chief Justice Coleman and Justice Kavanagh, adjust- requiring with concurred the Court in an calculating requiring ment for taxes in survivors’ benefits and a 410 Mich remarriage upon of a recomputation of survivors’ however, dissented, spouse. surviving from the conclusion He expenditures adjustment personal the the of dece- that no made, question what reach the need be and would not dent tangible items, wages, of "contributions other than constitute things plaintiffs the not value” because have of economic wages, alleged other or offered evidence of contributions than question Court. the is not before the and therefore Legislature measures for two differ- 1. used two different The loss, act; insurance work under the no-fault ent situations consisting injured person is unable to of from work the income injury, perform injury, of where he survives his because his family’s support where The the he dies. lost contributions to wages primary committed the two is that difference between personal expenditures injured person exclusively the the part part of the amount that would of work loss but are are family. the of the have contributed for been personal expenditures opinion that these of the Court concludes wages calculating in be from total need not subtracted person injured that the who dies would have contrib- amount is, family’s support. typically his Since this subtraction uted to measures, case, only the two in this difference between effectively by the the distinction drawn statute the Court erases wages measure of income in both and makes lost construing a is no basis for out the statute situations. There Legislature intended clearly distinction that is there. Had situations, wages it would not that be the measure both lost measures for the two different situa- have used two different construing this the Court for tions. The rationales advanced persuasive. analysis An distinction out of the statute are not provision purposes and antecedents the survivors’ loss that the different lan- indicates that intended guage result measure. in different by the on the 2. The first rationale advanced Court based act, legislative history adoption namely the of the Senate by the offered version the act rather than the substitute Both as House. bills defined survivors’ loss the loss of "contribu- family, to his tions” the deceased would have made that adding expenses of the the House substitute the clause "less death”. The Court survivors avoided reason decedent’s adopting concludes that the version without a subtraction Legisla- avoided survivors for the ture subtraction should made indicated no computing personal expenditures of the deceased acknowledges loss. it no evidence of The Court has v State Farm Ins give legislative adoption and take that led to of the Senate bill House, particular rather than that of the or whether this choice, or, difference between the two bills was a factor that factor, if this a difference was what the intended to accomplish by including doubt, the clause. With so much in questionable it is whether the mere choice of one bill over adequate negating clearly another is an basis for a distinction present language in the of the act. language 3. The of the "deleted” clause must be strained to by straining Only make it mean what the Court asserts. can personal expenditures of the deceased be considered "ex- penses of the survivors avoided reason of decedent’s death”. clause, meaning The correct of the one which indicates that it personal expendi- was not intended to refer to the deceased’s tures, is revealed in the comments to the model act from which example given the clause was drawn. The there is that require clause would the subtraction from a deceased child’s family family’s expenses financial contributions to the rearing recognizes the child. The Court that the measure of patterned survivors’ loss under the act was after the measure wrongful wrongful survivors’ loss under death acts. Under loss, compensating however, death acts the measure recovery earnings. is not total A reduction must made for personal expenditures Further, of the deceased. the draft- to ers’ comments both model acts on which the no-fault insur- recovery ance act was based state that was intended to be more rigorously pecuniary confined to actual loss than under most wrongful Failing death acts. wages to subtract the amount of spent himself, which the deceased exclusively would have on family rather than contributed support, to his for their defeats by allowing recovery this actually intent of an amount not lost. 4. The second rationale offered the Court is that difficulty disproportionate expense calculating the reduc- personal expenditures tion for the decedent’s is inconsistent legislative purpose expeditious with the settlement of complex, time-consuming claims without factual controversies. purpose The use negate of such a clearly a distinction drawn precedent. in the statute establishes a troublesome Is the Court arguably review all factual determinations called for under the no-fault insurance act on the basis of their cost? That is clearly Moreover, not the Court’s role. it is difficult to under- reject stand how the Court can this calculation as inconsistent purpose act, with the of the no-fault insurance when the Court requires virtually concludes that the act identical calculation surviving spouse when a dependent upon loses the status aas Mich 538 situation, remarriage. concludes that Court In latter requires a reduction of survivors’ act the no-fault insurance the deceased the amount contributions disqualified solely the benefit of the made "would have analogous dependent”. calculation of This calculation solely spent for the benefit of would have been the amount that deceased, surely time-con- will be no less difficult or agreed suming. insurance act all no-fault The Justices disqualified dependent. requires to calculation as the such a cannot, to the deceased consistent Such a as calculation conclusion, contrary purposes rejected to the as that act. Legislature have intended that income that would 5. The expenditures personal of the decedent to the been committed economic loss of the survivors. be considered as an should not wages Indeed, argue of that the loss the Court does not spent actually on the decedent is an economic would have been Obviously, be consid- the survivors cannot loss of the survivors. they would have received. To to have lost what never ered general goal the of the statute otherwise defeats construe through rigorously reducing the cost of no-fault insurance injured damages genuine confining Where the to economic loss. accident, Legislature person the ex- survives the automobile wages. recovery pressly provided for full of lost Where dies, Legislature wages injured person did use lost as not but, rather, damages to shifted the survivors’ measure of support. The Court in effect of to their loss contributions in those cases where the decedent had rewrites statute dependents shift the measure back to lost lived with the to provided. wages. simply what the has That is for further Reversed and remanded to the circuit court proceedings. (1979) 175; App reversed. 276 NW2d 873 Mich Opinion of the Court — — — 1. No-Fault Benefits Contributions Insurance Survivors’ Support. to The of benefits under the no-fault insurance calculation survivors’ sup- act takes into account all demonstrable contributions port dependents by would made to the have been adjustment for taxes deceased but for his less an income lived, paid by but had he that would have been deceased consumption "personal factor” for without consideration of personal expenses of the decedent which were avoided 24.13108). (MCL500.3108; MSA reason of death Farm v State Ins Damages — — — — 2. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits Wrongful Death. legislative history provision The of the no-fault insurance concerning act the calculation of benefits indicates should, an roughly, intent that survivors’ benefits at least correspond damages wrongful recoverable under the death loss, act sup- for economic which include the loss of financial port from the deceased and the value of services that survivor would have (MCL received from deceased had he lived 27A.2922). 500.3108,600.2922; 24.13108, MSA Damages Wrongful — 3. Death. Damages wrongful depend upon death the financial actually incurred the survivors as a result the decedent’s includes, death; it in addition to income from the decedent’s salaries, wages employment-related fringe or and benefits other support items available for the which are lost (MCL 600.2922; because 27A.2922). the decedent’s death MSA — — — 4. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits Contributions Support — Words and Phrases. tangible things "contributions of economic value” to the dependents, act, under the no-fault insurance in- insurance, pensions, clude the value items such health as disability provided by employer, the decedent’s income, annuity investment income and other items that are surviving dependents lost to the because of the decedent’s death (MCL 24.13108). 500.3108; MSA — — — 5. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits Contributions Support. to The calculation of survivors’ benefits under the no-fault insurance properly act gross is limited to the decedent’s income from wages allegation where the claimants made no offered and no any of support by evidence other to contributions their the (MCL 24.13108). 500.3108; decedent MSA — — — 6. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Loss Benefits Work — Benefits Income Taxes. upon provision Reliance the of the no-fault insurance concern- act ing work loss benefits to decide that survivors’ benefits should not be reduced the amount of income taxes that the dece- paid misplaced dent would have work because loss benefits limited, definition, wages are to the loss of income from or salary but survivors’ benefits include the of value other items dependents, which to contribute the of of some which 410 Mich 538 (MCL 500.3107, 500.3108; MSA subject taxes to income are 24.13108). 24.13107, — — — 7. Benefits Contributions Survivors’ No-Fault Insurance Support Taxes. Income actually unrealistic, measuring the financial be It would claiming surviving dependents the benefits under incurred act, acknowledge that the claim- to fail to no-fault insurance part support that for their of not have received ants would required pay in would have been income that he decedent’s taxes; inescapable liability with income is an the tax associated 24.13108). (MCL 500.3108;MSA of modern economic life fact Purpose. Legislative — — 8. Insurance No-Fault provide goal system of is to victims of the no-fault insurance assured, adequate, prompt and with motor vehicle accidents losses; reparation is de- certain economic no-fault act for delays disputes signed to and factual minimize administrative compensation goal expeditious of that would interfere with (MCL damages accidents 500.3101 suffered in motor vehicle seq.; seq.). 24.13101 et et MSA Expenses — — — of 9. No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits Insurance Decedent. Calculation, every benefits under case of a claim survivors’ act, "consumption insurance of a factor” attribut- the no-fault personal expenses would be inconsistent able to the decedent’s expeditious legislative purpose settlement declared complex controversy; factual if the of survivors’ claims without family can are attributable to the decedent of a which all, would involve at such a factual determination be calculated expense, controversy disproportionate interminable likely to such reduction benefits is be small amount of a 24.13108). (MCL500.3108; in most cases MSA Dependency — — — 10. No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits Insurance — Disqualification. Dependency, purposes qualification for survivors’ benefits act, by the under the is determined relation no-fault insurance but claimant the deceased at the time of events; specific may upon terminated occurrence injury oc- survivors’ accrue not when the decedent’s curs, incurred, but loss is so that when as terminates, longer dependency in- no survivor’s loss is (MCL longer corresponding curred and the benefit no accrues 24.13110). 500.3108, 500.3110; 24.13108, MSA State v Farm Ins — — Dependency — 11. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits — Disqualification. adjusting proper The method of survivors’ benefits to reflect disqualification of one of the claimants is to reduce them tangible things only by the contributions of of economic value solely deceased would have made for the benefit of the disqualified dependent; contributions which would benefit the (MCL 500.3108, 500.3110; family as a whole are not affected 24.13110). 24.13108, MSA — — Dependency — 12. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits — Disqualification. adjustment The of survivors’ benefits made when one disqualified dependent claimants becomes as a no- under the aggregate fault insurance act must be made to the loss at time the decedent’s before application statutory ceilings for survivors’ benefits (MCL500.3108, 24.13110). 500.3110; 24.13108, payable MSA Concurring Dissenting Levin, J. in Part and in Part 6, 7, See headnotes 10-12. — — — Expenses

13. No-Fault Insurance Survivors’ Benefits — Decedent Taxes. The calculation of survivors’ beneñts under no-fault insurance requires adjustment act an taxes income that would have (MCL paid by 500.3108; been the deceased had he lived MSA 24.13108). Appeal Appeal — — — — 14. Issues on Insurance No-Fault — Support. Survivors’ Benefits to Contributions Supreme question items,

The Court should not reach the what wages, tangible things other than constitute "contributions of economic value” survivors under no-fault insurance plaintiff alleged act where survivors have not or offered wages, evidence of contributions other than and therefore the (MCL question 24.13108). 500.3108; is not before the Court MSA — — — 15. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits Work Loss Damages — — Support Wages. — Benefits Contributions Legislature used two different measures for beneñts under act; injured person the no-fault insurance where the survives Legislature provided expressly automobile accident the recovery wages, person full injured of lost where the but dies damages shifted the measure of the survi- 410 Mich (MCL 500.3107[b], their loss of contributions vors’ 24.13108). 500.3108; 24.13107[b], MSA Legislative — — Intent. Construction 16. Statutes Legislature by the of questionable the choice whether mere is It negating adequate for a is an basis bill another one over language clearly present of the act where in the distinction give legislative and take that led to the is no evidence of there bill, particular adoption or the difference or, whether the choice, if in that the two was a factor bills between factor, to ac- a what the intended was difference including complish by not the clause. Damages — — — — Benefits 17. No-Fault Survivors’ Insurance Expenses Wrongful —Death of Decedent. under the no-fault insurance measure of survivors’ beneñts patterned of survivors’ loss under was after measure act however, wrongful acts; the drafters’ comments death act was based state which the no-fault insurance model acts on rigorously recovery conñned to was intended to be more acts, wrongful pecuniary than under most death actual wages failing amount of which the deceased to subtract himself, spent exclusively rather than contrib- on would have family support, defeats the intent uted to his for their (MCL allowing recovery actually of an amount not lost 24.13108). 500.3108;MSA Expenses Wrongful — Damages — —Death Loss 18. Survivors’ of Decedent. wrongful compensating damages acts under death

The measure of deceased; earnings of a reduction is total survivors’ loss not (MCL personal expenditures for must be made deceased 27A.2922). 600.2922;MSA — — — 19. Statutes Construction. Insurance No-Fault Supreme clearly not the of Court to review all It is role arguably factual determinations called for under the no-fault therefore, cost-effectiveness; insurance act on the basis of their difficulty expense calculating disproportionate that the legislative purpose is certain beneñts inconsistent with the expeditious settlement of claims should not be used (MCL negate clearly 500.3101 distinction drawn the statute seq.). seq.; et MSA 24.13101 et Expenses — — — 20. No-Fault Benefits Insurance Survivors’ Dependency — — Disqualification. Decedent wages by the which A reduction of survivors’ beneñts amount v State Farm Ins Opinion of the Court himself, spent exclusively have the deceased would on rather family support, than his their contributed to cannot be purposes rejected contrary to as of the no-fault insurance expeditiously agreed to settle it act claims where that the no- require fault insurance does act a similar reduction survi- surviving dependent disqualiñed vors’ beneñts when a becomes (MCL 24.13110). 500.3108, 500.3110; 24.13108, MSA beneñts Legislative — — 21. Statutes Construction Intent. ground attempts legisla- A court is on insecure when it to derive enactment, explanation, tive intent from the without one bill another; ñrmer, although than a court rather is on somewhat solid, ground express when it reasons from defeat of a amendment, interpretation or bill but the of statutes cannot safely upon legislative mute be made intermediate maneuvers. — — Expenses — 22. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits of Legislative — Decedent Intent. Expeditious reparation complex of claims without factual contro- general purposes is versies one of the of the no-fault insurance act, general purposes justify reading but such cannot a court in requirement out act the there be a reduction of wages survivors’ beneñts amount of which the deceased himself, spent exclusively would have on rather than contrib- (MCL family 500.3108; to his uted their MSA 24.13108). — — Expenses — 23. Insurance No-Fault Survivors’ Benefits of Decedent. Survivors’ beneñts under the no-fault insurance act do in- spent personal clude income that would have been on the expenditures decedent; expenses the decedent’s are not part they of the economic loss of the survivors because cannot they be considered (MCL lost to have what never would received have 24.13108). 500.3108;MSA plaintiffs. Sloan, Risdon, Beneñel & Farrer for James, Dark & Brill for defendant. Ongoing experience

Ryan, J. with the innova- generate tive no-fault insurance act1 continues to litigation requiring judicial discovery of intent 294, amended; seq.; 1 1972PA as MCL 500.3101 et MSA 24.13101 et seq. 410 Mich op the Court provisions concerning of various of act. a case. This such appeals granted these leave in consolidated

We in order to decide: payable under § "[Whether] act, 500.3108; MSA insurance MCL the no-fault

of gross pay computed on the basis 24.13108 [should] by the amount pay reduced or take-home of decedent’s death.” avoided reason And, remarriage of a widow reduce[s] "[Whether] dependents under benefits due other

amount of survivor act, 500.3108; insurance MCL 3108 of the no-fault 24.13108.” MSA We hold:

(1) language light 3108, read legislative history no- the context of the its whole, it is fault act as a establishes legislative of "contri- intention that calculation tangible things value” economic butions all demonstrable should include consideration of made to contributions would have been dependents by death, his less deceased but for adjustment taxes would an income-related paid by lived, had he and have been the deceased personal consumption any without consideration of relating to reason factor avoided death; the deceased’s

(2) provisions of the no-fault act contem- The surviving plate remarriage a that the of decedent’s spouse requires an event reduction is which remaining sur- loss benefits due State Farm Ins 551 v op the Court viving amount equal an to the amount of tangible things of contributions of eco- nomic value which would have been provided by deceased, death, at the time of for the sole disqualified dependent. benefit of the (3) The decision of the Court of Appeals is re- versed and the case remanded circuit court for proceedings consonant herewith.

I decedent, Saltzman, Plaintiffs’ Carl died as a result of he injuries sustained an automobile 10, accident which occurred on 1976. January plaintiffs widow, Mr. are Saltzman’s who is now remarried, his children. The defendant State Farm was the decedent’s no-fault automobile in- surer at time of the fatal accident. death,

Prior to his part- Mr. Saltzman held one time and one full-time and his job, gross combined monthly wages amounted $806. 1976,

In the spring after Mr. Saltzman’s plaintiffs met Farm State claims adjuster in order to plaintiffs’ calculate the survi- benefits, vors’ loss provided as 3108 of the no- act, fault 500.3108; insurance MCL MSA 24.131Ó8. Some time meeting, after this the plaintiffs were informed State Farm that they paid would be no survivors’ loss benefits under their decedent’s no-fault policy they because were entitled to Social exceeded, Security benefits which and thereby offset,2 that, completely the amount according calculations, to State the plain- Farm’s tiffs would have received from Mr. Saltzman had he lived._

Farm Mutual Automobile Ins See MCL 500.3109(1); MSA Co, 24.13109(1). Mich See also O’Donnell v State 524; NW2d (1979). Mich 538 410 Opinion the of Court Miller, 1976, Linda the dece- plaintiff In of June widow, remarried. dent’s Miller, 28, 1977, plaintiff individu- January

On of her minor children next friend two ally and as Saltzman, State Farm against filed suit Carl loss benefits and seeking to recover damages. other 22, plaintiffs filed a motion 1977 the April

On pursuant to GCR partial summary judgment for 1963, 117.2(2), 117.2(3), claiming entitlement to a judge The trial issued written survivors’ benefits. 14, July August the on 1977. On opinion on motion 24, 1977, giving entered effect a was judgment provided, perti- 14th decision which July part: nent proofs "The further finds no have been court gross by plaintiffs other than the decedent’s

submitted tangible pay, as to the amount of contributions things dependents of the de- of economic value ceased at the time of his death would have received during if dependency their from deceased causing bodily injury he had death, suffered the accidental finds that as a matter of law defendant and provisions policy under of the no- of its per said the sum of fault act owes month, $806 gross decedent being pay said sum at being time his no deduction allowable personal consumption or taxes the deceased. "The further as a of law that after court finds matter 25, 1976, remarriage of the until the widow on June 10, 1979, each January pay said defendant shall sum dependent per child month.” $403 provisions August foregoing judg- into trial incorporated ment were subsequently court’s final which entered on Janu- judgment was 24, 1978, after trial on issues. ary other appealed State Court of Appeals Farm Farm v State Ins op the Court ruling that, affirmed the trial court’s on the which presented case, in this survivors’ loss bene- record solely to be calculated on the basis of the fits were having gross income, there been no decedent’s plaintiffs as to evidence offered other tangible things sources of "contributions of support by to their their dece- economic value” disagreed Appeals However, the Court of dent. ruling "personal with the trial court’s that no consumption factor” should be deducted from the determining gross pay in the amount of decedent’s payable § 3108 survivors’ loss benefits under point. Appeals reversed on that not discuss the trial court’s The Court of did

ruling concerning remarriage effect of the decedent’s widow’s on the amount thereafter surviving dependents, survivors’ loss benefits which would remaining payable to the decedent’s Co,

Miller v State Farm Ins (1979). App 175; 88 Mich 276 NW2d 873 plaintiffs Both the and the defendant then filed separate applications appeal for leave this granted applications Court. We both and ordered (1979). their consolidation. 406 Mich 1005 II proper What is the method of calculation of survivors’ loss beneñts under 3108 of the no-fault insurance act, 500.3108; MCL 24.13108? MSA action, § At the times relevant to this provided: the no-fault insurance act protection payable "Personal insurance are loss, for a survivors’ loss which consists of a after died, date on which the deceased of contributions tangible value, things including not ser- economic vices, dependents of the deceased at the time of his support during death would have received for their 410 Mich op the Court not suffered if he had from the deceased dependency expen- causing death and bodily injury accidental reasonably incurred per day, ses, exceeding $20.00 not after during dependency and their these obtaining ordi- died on which the deceased the date in lieu of those necessary services nary and if he performed for their benefit have deceased would causing death. The benefits injury not suffered the had with the death loss in connection payable for survivors’ period not exceed single 30-day shall person in a of a $1,000.00 first 3 payable beyond the [sic] of the accident.” years after the date consist of that survivors’ loss benefits It is clear distinct elements: two

(1) loss, the deceased’s contribu- after things tangible value, not of economic tions of dependents including services, the deceased’s that support died; had he not received for would have (2) exceeding per day, expenses not reason- $20 dependents by ably after the deceased’s incurred obtaining ordinary necessary death, in his that the deceased would in lieu of those services have performed dependents’ benefit had he for his not died. the correct method of

The issue here concerns of these elements. calculation of the first dispute plaintiffs were There is no that dependents the time of his of the deceased at death,3 loss and therefore entitled to survivors’ undisputed It that Carl Saltzman’s benefits. is also support dependents’ to his entire contribution "tangible things his value” was from economic wages from alone. income case, that, survi- State Farm contends this 500.3110(1)(a), 294, 3110(1)(a), 3110(1)(c); MCL See 1972 PA §§ 24.13110(1)(c). 24.13110(1)(a), 500.3110(1)(c); MSA v State Farm Ins Opinion op the Court vors’ loss benefits should equal the deceased’s after (or net) tax "take home” less pay the amount of personal expenses deceased’s which are avoided reason of his since it is that surviving amount which the actually would have received for support their from Mr. Saltzman had he lived. plaintiffs respond that the trial court was ruling

correct in this case the total survi- vors’ loss benefits is an amount equal to the de- gross ceased’s without pay, any adjustment.4 The Court of Appeals held that the survivors’ loss benefits this case should be based on the gross decedent’s pay, without adjustment for taxes that would have been paid, less an amount charac- terized as a "consumption factor” reflecting the decedent’s personal that are avoided by surviving dependents reason of their in- sured’s 175; death. Mich App NW2d 873 (1979). disagree

We with the lower courts’ analyses and conclusions. survivors’,

In the calculation of un- determining § 3108, der what is to be considered in tangible things the amount of "contributions of surviving dependents economic value” the deceased would have received for had the deceased lived? 4The trial Security court refused to allow a setoff of the Social plaintiffs, relying survivors’ benefits received on O’Donnell v Co, (1976). App 487;

State Farm Ins 70 Mich 245 NW2d 801 decision, publication After the trial court’s and before of the Court Appeals case, decision in this we decided O’Donnell v State Farm Co, 524; (1979), Ins 404 Mich 273 NW2d 829 in which we held that provision act, 500.3109(1); the set-off of the no-fault MCL MSA 24.13109(1), constitutional, reversing thereby Ap- was the Court of peals upon by O’Donnell decision which had been relied the trial Appeals applied court in this case. The Court of our decision in longer O’Donnell to this case and the no issue is contested parties. 556 410 Mich 538 Opinion op the Court obligation answering question, our In that Legislature’s give inten- effect to the discover and enacting can determine it § 3108 as best we tion in language employed §in 3108 and the no- from the light legisla- whole, and in of such fault act as a history See Production Credit as is available. tive Lansing Dep’t Treasury, 404 Mich v Ass’n of (1978); Lansing Lansing 301, 311; 10 v 273 NW2d (1959). Twp, 641; 97 804 It is 356 Mich NW2d history necessary therefore to examine intended order to determine how loss” benefits to be measured. no-fault “survivors’ Ballinger Smith, 23, 30-31; v Mich See NW2d (1950). language analysis an We turn first to the statute itself. significance primary analysis in the is the

Of expression is meant determination of what things tangible of economic va- "contributions of § it in 3108. lue” as is used

Assigning to the words used their generally meaning, primary it and understood appear would uncontrovertible the dollar must include the amount amount the survivors “would have received for support” [their individual] had Mr. Saltzman own suggests paid not died. That that the amount to be ascertaining merely by them is determined first of “tangible things all the total amount of of eco- family’s gross nomic value” which constituted the period deducting "income” for a stated there- required ex- from such amounts as were to be pended purposes for all other than their requirement, which, reason of such would Nothing support. not have been available for their language suggests in the of 3108 fund of that the "tangible things of economic value” is limited to 557 State Farm Ins v Court wages. complex today’s system, In economic the many "tangible things of economic value” which support persons depen- contribute to the of their hospital dents include fits, and medical insurance bene- coverage, pensions, disability investment in- annuity come, income and other benefits. Had it the intent of the to limit been vors’ benefits survi- equal eligible a sum to what wages dependents would have received from salary alone, it could be and expected to have said so. category It chose instead the far broader of "con- tangible things tributions of of economic value” suggests which, face, on its the inclusion of bene- family fits derived for from other and different sources. Our conclusion to that effect is history fortified consideration of the legislation. 3108

Section was derived from Senate Bill No. corresponding 782 19715and House Substi 6 apparent Bill 782. It tute for Senate No. provided, pertinent part: Section 8 of Senate Bill 782 of 1971 in protection payable “Personal insurance benefits are for a survivors’ loss, loss which consists of a after the date on which the deceased died, ing value, tangible things of contributions of of economic not includ- services, persons who are of the deceased at the support during of his time death would have received for their dependency from the if he deceased had suffered the accidental bodily injury causing these which the deceased died in expenses reasonably death and incurred dependents during dependency their and after the date on obtaining ordinary necessary services performed in lieu of those that the deceased would have for their causing injury if benefit he had not suffered the death.” 6Sections 3101 of the House Substitute for Senate Bill No. provided, pertinent part: chapter may "Sec. 3101. This shall be known and be cited as the 'Lodge, McNeely, reparations Heinze uniform motor vehicle accident act’. (1) person "Sec. 3106. 'Survivor’ means a who is entitled to receive pursuant to Section 2922 of Act 236 of the Public of Laws of No. Acts 1961, amended, being Compiled as section 600.2922 of the 1948, by person. reason of the death of another "(2) 'Survivor’s economic loss’ means after decedent’s death loss of 410 Mich 538 Opinion of the Court based, provisions relevant of those bills were turn, upon provisions contained the Motor t7(MVBPIA) Vehicle Basic Protection Insurance Ac and the Motor Repara Uniform Vehicle Accident (UMVARA) tions Act8 respectively. value, things including contributions economic services to his survivors, that his survivors would have received from the decedent injury causing expenses had he not suffered the less by survivors avoided reason of decedent’s death. "(3) replacement expenses ’Survivor’s services loss’ means reason- ably nary performed death, by obtaining incurred survivors after decedent’s in death ordi- necessary and in services lieu of those that decedent would have injury causing for their benefit had he not suffered the expenses by less of the survivors avoided reason of the dece- calculating dent’s death and which were not subtracted in survivor’s (1972)4113, 4115, economic loss.” Mich House J 4118-4119. O’Connell, See Keeton & Basic Protection for the Traffic Victim: A Blueprint (Little, Reforming Co, Automobile Insurance Brown & 1965), 7, pp seq. ch 299 et 1.9(e) provides: Section of the MVBPIA (i) loss, "Survivors’ loss. Survivors’ loss consists of after the date on died, tangible things which the deceased of contributions of of eco- (not services) including qualifying nomic value that survivors as persons suffering loss under the terms of section 1.11 of this Act would have received from injury the deceased had he not suffered the (ii) causing after necessary expenses reasonably by death and incurred such survivors obtaining ordinary the date on which the deceased died in and services lieu of those that the deceased would have performed injury causing for their benefit had he not suffered the death.” Compare 782, 5, supra. to 8 of Senate Bill § No. fn ULA, Laws, See 14 Civil Procedural and Remedial Uniform Motor Act, Reparations pp seq.

Vehicle Accident 50 et 1(a)(5)(iv) provides: Section of the UMVARA " 'Survivor’s economic loss’ means loss after decedent’s death of things survivors, contributions of ing suffered the fatal of economic value to his not includ- they services would have received from the decedent if he had not injury, expenses by less of the survivors avoided reason of decedent’s death.” 1(a)(5)(v) provides: Section of the UMVARA " replacement expenses 'Survivor’s reasonably services loss’ means incurred obtaining ordinary survivors after decedent’s death in necessary and services in lieu of those the decedent would have performed for their benefit if injury, he had not suffered the fatal less of the survivors avoided reason of the decedent’s death calculating and not subtracted in survivor’s economic loss.” 3106(2) 3106(3) Compare Bill, 6, §§ the House Substitute fn supra. The UMVARA was drafted the National Conference of Commis- State v Farm Ins Opinion op the Court Legislaturé’s In view of the obvious reliance upon acts, the relevant sections model it is cognizant agreement of, evident that it was and in policies with, the which underlie the model acts’ language. 1.9(e)

The authors’ comments on MVBPIA, which is substance identical to 9 of 782, Senate Bill are: paragraph 1.9](e),

"In 'survivors’ loss’ is defined in a [§ way somewhat similar damages to standards for under acts, rigorous death but a more adherence genuine economic loss than under most death acts. For example, loss of services of the deceased is not an itself; rather, allowable item general the allowable item of this 'expenses nature is limited to reasonably in- * * * obtaining curred ordinary necessary ser- vices in lieu of those deceased would have performed for their benefit had he not [the survivors’] ” causing suffered the injury death.’ Keeton & O’Con- nell, Basic Protection for the Traffic Victim: A Blue- print Reforming (Little, Insurance Automobile Co, 1965), p Brown & 400.

Similarly, pertinent portion of Commission- l(a)(5)(iv) l(a)(5)(v) §§ ers’ Comments to and of UMVARA, in which are substance identical to 3106(2) § Substitute, of the House is:

" 'Survivor’s replace- economic loss’ and 'survivor’s ment services analogous loss’ are defined in a way sioners on Uniform State Laws under a contract with the United Department Transportation. States of Work was commenced on the May Hill, uniform act in of 1971. The Uniform Motor Vehicle Acci- (1972). Reparations Act, dent 8 The Forum 1 ultimately adopted The UMVARA was the National Conference August Kircher, of Commissioners in of 1972. Ghiardi & The Uniform Reparations Motor Analysis Critique, Vehicle Accident Act: An (1972); 23 Kircher, Quarterly Federation of Insurance Counsel 47 Ghiardi & Act, Reparations The Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident 40 (1973). Insurance Counsel J 87 410 Mich Court that, wrongful except damages death for standards 'replacement services for 'work loss’ and as is the case rigorously limited to loss,’ more allowable items are wrongful typical death genuine loss. As under economic statutes, damages is loss to survi- the measure Thus, calculating from death. which results vors benefits, expectancy probable life had he the decedent’s injured and the extent to which survivors not been things of economic would have would have received contributions extent to which decedent value or the must be taken into performed services for his survivors Laws, ULA, and Remedial Civil Procedural account.” Act, Reparations p 55. Accident Uniform Motor Vehicle Thus, use of the appears Legislature’s it things of eco- tangible "contributions language 3108 indicates an intent nomic value” roughly loss benefits should at least to economic loss damages recoverable correspond 600.2922; MCL wrongful under our death act. MSA 27A.2922. act, a wrongful

Under our death survivor’s re- include, minimum, at a coverable economic losses the loss of financial from deceased and the loss of services that the survivor would have received from the deceased had he lived. See (Ann Wade, ed, Michigan Damages Law of ICLE, 1978), 2, 2-4—2-11. pp Arbor: Part These damages clearly contemplated elements of are 3108 of the no-fault act.9_ General, 554, 578-579; Attorney 402 Mich We said Shavers v (1978): 267 NW2d 72 goal system provide "The victims of no-fault insurance was assured, adequate, prompt reparation motor vehicle accidents certain economic losses. The goal believed this could be insurance, effectively through compulsory system most achieved a Michigan required purchase whereby every motorist no- would be operate legally in fault insurance or be unable to a motor vehicle this system, state. Under this receive insurance benefits common-law victims of motor vehicle accidents would injuries for their for their as substitute remedy in tort.” relationship of 3108 economic loss survivors’ loss benefits to Miller v State Farm Ins Opinion of the Court

To the extent that survivors’ loss benefits are analogous wrongful intended to be death act damages, important keep economic loss it is wrongful damages upon mind that death act focus actually the financial loss incurred the survi- vors as a result of their decedent’s death. See (2d Speiser, ed), Recovery Wrongful Death pp Certainly, wage § 3:5, 136-140. the deceased’s or salary significant always income is almost factor calculating the actual financial loss incurred However, the survivors. the amount of the loss solely to, incurred is not limited much less based upon, wage salary income, the deceased’s or but myriad employment-related includes as well the fringe "tangible things benefits and other of eco- dependants’ support nomic value” available for always described hereinbefore which are not re- wage salary pay”. flected in or "take home See 1 Speiser, supra, pp §§ 3:8, 3:20, 147-150, 212-215.

Accordingly, Legis- it is our conclusion that lature intended that measurement of 3108 survivors’ loss benefits should include the value of tangible things than, to, other and in addition wages salary. The dollar value of such items employer-provided coverage, as health insurance pensions, disability tangible benefits, and other things of economic value that are lost to the surviving dependents by reason of the insured’s apparent death must be taken into account. It is many then, cases, the total amount tangible things "contributions of of economic va- wage salary lue” will exceed or income. present plaintiffs

In case, however, made allegation any no and offered no evidence of con- tributions to their made their decedent damage wrongful elements of under the death act is consistent with goal the above described of the no-fault act. 410 Mich Opinion of the Court other than his income from We find wages. there- that, us, pleadings fore on the and evidence before properly the lower court limited the calculation of aggregate of deceased’s contribution of tangible things gross value to his wage economic income.

Ill It is next necessary decide whether the aggre- gate figure respect reached with to "contributions tangible things of economic value” should be reduced the amount of taxes that would have deceased, paid been and further reduced by an relating amount to the "personal deceased’s consumption factor”.

A Should the calculation of survivors’ loss beneñts under 3108 include consideration of the amount § of income-related taxes that the deceased would paid have had he lived? question,

On this Appeals Court of held: "The defendant contends that since the above statute * * * * * * directs that 'a survivors’ consists of * * * contributions of the deceased * * * would have received for support’ (emphasis sup- plied), it properly require is read to plaintiffs only be awarded gross the amount of the decedent’s wage which would have support been available to plaintiffs prior to the decedent’s death. While a literal reading provides statute some for the 3108, defendant’s construction of analysis a brief § 294, 1972 PA of which part, 3108 was a indicates the § fallacy argument respect defendant’s to the 3107(b) act, deduction of taxes. Section of the no-fault part 294, also a provides of 1972 PA explicitly that 15 percent may personal protection be deducted from in- Miller v State Farm Ins Opinion op the Court in certain surance benefits situations where such bene- 'are not income’. the fact fits taxable Given that both piece legislation, were contained in the sections same it intended, to assume that reasonable had 3108, income, limit to after-tax § language adopted it have similar to that used in would App 3107.” 88 Mich 180-181. find that the Court of Appeals We reliance on 3107(b)10 language of the no-fault act was misplaced. 3107(b) provides payment

Section loss” to an "work benefits insured who suffers non- section "work injury. fatal defines loss” as of "consisting of loss income from work an injured * * person performed would have Thus, limited, work benefits by loss are defini- tion, wage to salary the loss of or income. Work taxable, benefits are not loss while lost income they replace be. The adjustment would tax lan- 3107(b) guage in presumably operates therefore § 24.13107(b) 500.3107(b); provides: MCL MSA consisting injured person "Work loss loss of work of income from an performed during years have would the first 3 after the date of the injured exceeding if accident he had not been and not $20.00 per day, reasonably obtaining ordinary necessary incurred in and that, injured, injured services in lieu of person if those he had not been an performed during years would have the first 3 after of the date accident, the dependent. which the not but for income for the of himself benefit or of his any Work loss does not loss include after the date on injured person dies. beneñts Because the received from personal protection insurance for loss of income are not taxable income, payable the beneñts for such loss of income shall be reduced presents support unless the claimant 15% the insurer of his proof advantage claim reasonable of a lower value of the income tax case, apply. in his in which case the lower value shall The benefits payable income earned together single 30-day period for work loss sustained in a and the person injured during period an for work the same $1,000.00, apply pro shall not exceed which maximum shall any period adjusted rata lesser of work loss. The maximum shall be annually changes prescribed living to reflect in the cost of under rules any change apply commissioner but maximum in the shall only date arising occurring subsequent to benefits out of accidents to the added.) change (Emphasis in the maximum.” 410 Mich 538 op the Court wage salary equitably or taxable where in all cases 3107(b) replaced by has As benefits.

income II, loss benefits in Part survivors’ discussed been apart encompass from, items the value of many wage salary In income. to, addition in survivors’ be included instances, items that will origins. In some non-taxable will have benefits loss only may non- involve cases, loss the survivors’ will, in loss benefits of items other items. Since taxable many than cases, the value include salary wage income, loss while work or taxable salary wage income, or limited to are 3107(b) language con- on reliance struction inappropriate. § 3108 is present significance greater is the issue Of * * * language §3108 that "a survivors’ * * * tangible of contributions of a loss consists * * * dependents things that value of economic * * * sup- received for would have the deceased port * * added.) (Emphasis liability is an inesca- with income Tax associated pable In measur- economic life. fact of our modern ing ing dependents, acknowledge actually surviv- incurred the financial loss to fail to it be unrealistic would surviving would portion for their have received re- have been income that he would deceased’s quired adjustment pay Moreover, in the to taxes. readily accurately based on for such taxes can be unnecessary information, without ascertainable time-consuming delays factual or administrative disputes. language § of 3108 establishes

We find that the amount of intended that that survivors’ loss benefits ment made for taxes paid adjust- an

should reflect have that the deceased would in the 3108 ben- taxable items included on efit calculation. State Farm Ins v Opinion of the Court hold that the lower courts erred

We therefore ruling that the calculation of survivors’ loss bene- pursuant § 3108 fits should include consider- paid would have ation of taxes that deceased had he lived.

B of survivors’ loss beneñts Should the calculation "personal § 3108 include consideration of a under relating purely personal consumption factor” by rea- of the deceased that are avoided son of his death? upon provision

Relying § 3l08 that survi- payable dependent vors’ loss benefits are to a "tangible things” dependent as the the loss of such support” "would have received for but for the defendant makes a forceful decedent’s argument

that such fund does not include either previous the taxes discussed section or such sums as would have been consumed the dece- clothing food, recreation, dent himself for personal expenses. language The bare of the stat- suggest meaning. Certainly, ute does indeed if Legislature, employing it was the intent of the language require chosen, the dollar computed by amount of survivors’ loss benefits be deducting "tangible things from the of economic "consumption value” factor” attributable to the personal expenses, require deceased’s application we must However,

of such a formula. there are persuasive despite at least two indications that apparently plain simple language of the stat- Legis- suggested by defendant, ute to the effect "consumption lature did not intend such a factor” calculating to be deducted in survivors’ loss bene- fits. 410 Mich 538 Opinion of the Court legislative

The first is the history adoption 3108, and the second is the declared purpose the no-fault act as a whole. are in discovering legislative

We aided intent enacting any by examining statute the proposed legislation it rejected, considered and contrasted provisions with the as finally adopted. That ap- proach is particularly useful this instance since there is no hearings record of committee or floor debate available to us. indicated,

As has been 3108 was enacted after consideration of at least two alternatives. 782,

One alternative was Senate Bill No. which provided pertinent part:

"Sec. 8. protection Personal insurance benefits are payable loss, for a survivors’ loss which consists of a died, after the date on which the deceased of contribu- tangible things value, tions of services, of economic including not persons who are of the de- ceased at the time of his death would have received for support during dependency their from the if deceased he had not bodily suffered the accidental injury causing expenses death and reasonably depen- incurred these during dents their dependency and after the date on which the obtaining deceased died in ordinary and necessary services in lieu of those that the deceased performed would have for their benefit if he had not suffered the injury causing death.” alternative,

The other contained in the House Substitute 782, Senate Bill No. provided in pertinent part (§§ 3106[3]): 3106[2]

" 'Survivor’s economic loss’ means after decedent’s death loss of things value, contributions of of economic including survivors, services to his that his survi- vors would have received from the decedent had he not State Farm Ins v Opinion of the Court causing injury suffered the less death.” survivors avoided reason decedent’s " replacement expen- 'Survivor’s services loss’ means by after reasonably ses death lieu their benefit had he not suffered the incurred survivors decedent’s obtaining ordinary necessary and services in performed that decedent would have those causing injury expenses less of the survivors avoided reason death and which were not of the decedent’s in added.) subtracted calculating (Emphasis survivor’s economic loss.” (1972) 5 Mich House J 1418-1419. legislative that attend the myriad activities course, process having run their 1972 PA 294 was containing language enacted consistent with that Bill 782 of Senate No. and without the clause "less avoided survivors reason of the appeared decedent’s death” which the House substitute bill. logical

It is to conclude that the Legislature reason, eliminated the italicized clause for a most the reason was that it likely pre- wished to clude reduction of the amount of' survivors’ the decedent’s "consumption factor”. asked, however, hold, We are as did the Court of Appeals, Legislature meant 3108 not only what it did say not but what it explicitly, explicitly rejected. We are not inclined to do so. General, See Wayne v Auditor 250 County Mich 227, 235-236; (1930); 229 911 People NW v Ada- (1954). mowski, 422, 429; 340 Mich 65 NW2d 753 See also 2A Sutherland’s Statutory Construction (4th ed), 48.18, pp 224-225.

The second reason we think the did intend a "consumption factor” for the personal decedent’s expenses be calculated deducted from the "things tangible fund of value” that the decedent’s would oth- erwise have received is found in our understand- 410 Mich Opinion of the Court itself and no-fault act purpose

ing of the applied. to be intended in which it is manner General, 554, Mich Attorney v Shavers In (1978), said: we 578-579; 267 NW2d was to system insurance goal of the no-fault "The assured, accidents vehicle of motor provide victims adequate, and economic reparation for certain prompt losses”. administrative minimize designed to

The act interfere that would disputes and factual delays com- expeditious goal with achievement in motor vehicle damages suffered pensation served, example, by are These ends accidents. presumptions for conclusive provisions the act’s 24.13110; 500.3110; status, MSA MCL dependency of by of benefits payment method for a "safe” 24.13112; for 500.3112; MSA and insurers, MCL injured of an earnings records access to prompt facilitate determination in order person due, 500.3158; MSA MCL benefits amount of pro- does not while Additionally, 24.13158. §3108 expenses of personal for vide a deduction for. it does of his reason by decedent avoided of survi- on the amount ceiling absolute contain an Thus, 30-day period. for any vors’ loss benefits whole, itself, presumably act as a and the between reflect a balance struck of calculation precision absolute factual "assured, and adequate, goal and the of benefits economic losses”. reparation for certain prompt Calculation, case, "consumption of a every ex- personal to the decedent’s factor” attributable the declared inconsistent with penses would be of settlement expeditious of legislative purposes factual contro- complex claims without versy; Farm State Ins v op the Court family enter- run like a commercial not

A is Family prise. their not allocated or finances are expenditure Ac- as in a business. for accounted rarely, counting procedures ever, if followed are precise dollars-and-cents for account to each member attributable and in kind in cash example, family. the de- How, would "consumption factor” breadwinner’s ceased family family automobile, house- meals, use of personal maintenance, ex- and hundreds hold penses all, if at one And calculable calculated? be controversy and the interminable envision can disproportionate expense determina- a factual such plaintiff aptly put it: so involve. As tion would uniform rapid, efficient and legislative purpose of "A ponderous a not advanced adjustment claims family expenditure.” Plaintiff’s every examination of Brief, p 18. goal expeditious

In the no-fault act’s view of injuries, reparation motor vehicle accident disputes, potential minimization we con- factual Legislature’s explicit rejection clude that the ing language concern- in the House substitute bill the reduction of survivors’ consumption "personal factor” evi- decedent’s intent that survivors’ loss benefits dences an personal adjusted. be so The amount of such consumption likely in most factor is to be small delays cases, factual and the administrative might engendered by such a controversies that unjustifiably interfere with calculation would goals above-discussed of the act. legislative history 3108, §of

We hold that goals of the no-fault act and consideration of the Legisla- whole, that the as a lead to the conclusion §of 3108 not intend that the calculation ture did 410 Mich Opinion of the Court should include adjustment the de- "personal ceased’s consumption factor”.

We reverse the Court of Appeals ruling and judgment reinstate of the trial court on this point.

C In summary, we conclude that the Legislature intended that 3108 survivors’ loss benefits should § be calculated:

(1) to include all demonstrable "contributions tangible things of economic value” including, but to, wages limited that would have been re- ceived as support by the surviving dependents from death; the deceased but for his

(2) reduced an adjustment for the income- related taxes that would paid have been by the decedent on items contributed himby to his depen- dents’ support;

(3) adjustment without for the "per- decedent’s consumption sonal factor”.

IV Does the remarriage of an insured decedent’s spouse reduce the amount of survivors’ beneñts due other under 3108? As has been indicated previously, loss * * *

benefits are payable "for a survivors’ contributions of tangible things of economic value * * * that dependents of the deceased at the time of his death would have received for support dur- * * ing their dependency added.) (Emphasis Such benefits are payable three years after the date accident. 500.3108; MCL MSA 24.13108.

The emphasized language in 3108 and that of 571 v State Farm Ins Opinion of Court margin,11 in the 3110(l)(a), is set forth which § purposes dependency status establishes is to be determined survivors’ loss benefits relationship dependency reference to the survivors’ death. at the time of the deceased’s to the deceased 3110(3) the act contem- establishes Section upon status dependency plates the termination specified events.12 the occurrence 3110(4) that survivors’ loss ben- Section declares occurs, but as the injury accrue not when efits loss is incurred.13 survivors’ termi- dependent status as a When a survivor’s 3110(3), individ- that survivor’s pursuant nates longer Accordingly, upon no incurred. ual loss is 3110(3) specified of an event the occurrence status, it dependency a is terminating survivor’s to the amount adjustment to consider an necessary thereafter to the payable of survivors’ loss benefits 11 500.3110; provides: 24.13110 MCL MSA "(1) following persons conclusively presumed depen- The are to be person: dents of a deceased "(a) dependent A wife is on a husband with whom she lives at the time of his death. “(b) dependent on he lives at the A husband is a wife whom time of her death. "(c) age age years, A over that but child while under the or incapacitated earning, dependent physically mentally the regularly or from is .on parent he receives with whom he lives or from whom parent. at the death time of the “(2) cases, questions dependency In all and the extent of other they dependency shall be determined in accordance with the facts as exist at the time of death. "(3) upon dependency surviving spouse death or The of a terminates remarriage. upon dependency any person other terminates person only long person is under death of the and continues so as the age years, physically mentally incapacitated of 18 or from earn- ing, engaged program or full time in a of academic or voca- formal training. tional education or "(4) protection payable for accidental Personal insurance benefits bodily injury injury accrue when the occurs but as the allowable added.) (Emphasis expense, work loss or survivors’ loss is incurred.” 12See fn 11.

13See fn 11. Mich op the Court dependents.

remaining surviving This conclusion expressly § 3112 which reference to buttressed apportionment of, and entitle- considers individual pro- benefits, to, and which ment disputes resolution of vides mechanism concerning survivors’ loss benefits the amount of surviving dependents.14 due individual provisions of the find that above-discussed We legislative that intent no-fault act manifest a the appropriately benefits should survivors’ loss adjusted disqualification aof in the event of the dependency relevant survivor from status. proper provisions of ad- the method indicate justing termi- to reflect the benefits dependency status of a nation survivor’s tangible the amount of contributions of recalculate things remaining the de- of economic value that pendents the from would have received is, the the time his death. That deceased at aggregate of being paid of survivors’ loss benefits prior the the benefit of all of decedent’s survivors 500.3112; provides: 24.13112 MCL MSA protection payable to or for the "Personal insurance benefits are or, person injured for the of an of his in case of his to or benefit benefit personal protection person Payment good dependents. an insurer faith benefits, to or for of a insurance the benefit benefits, discharges the who it believes is entitled to the payments liability insurer insurer’s to the extent of the unless the If person. writing has been notified in the claim of some other proper person or the there is doubt the to receive the benefits about thereto, proper apportionment among persons the entitled the in- person apply surer, any may to the other interested the or claimant appropriate may designate the circuit court for an order. The court payees equitable taking apportionment, the and make an into account relationship person payees injured as the to the and other factors appropriate. the court considers court order In the absence of a directing may pay: otherwise the insurer "(a) person, personal protec- injured To the the appointment tion insurance accrued his death without before of an administrator or executor. "(b) spouse, protection surviving personal To the insurance the living any dependent spouse.” (Empha- due beneñts children added.) sis Ins Farm v State the Court disqualification of of them should be one to the equal only by the amount to the contribu- reduced things tangible of economic value that the tions solely made for the benefit of would have deceased dependent. disqualified Contributions which opposed family whole, as unit as benefit disqualified dependent only, af- would not be example, the contributions For fected. family’s have made toward the

deceased would way payments rent, of house or in the shelter property family utility costs, taxes, household expenses which do not inure to the and similar car disqualified dependent should sole benefit adjusted. adjustment Further, should be not be aggregate reference to the of contribu- made with tangible things of economic value at the tions of application death —before time of the deceased’s ceilings. Thus, in a case where the determination of survivors’ loss was an initial ceilings, amount excess of the payable therefore reduced amount of benefits was statutory necessary maximum, to the it will be disqualification whether the later of one determine in would result a reduction of original total survivors’ loss to an amount below applicable statutory not, If the maximum. the for the statu- insurer would continue be liable tory maximum a after the termination of survi- dependency vor’s status. foregoing reasons,

For the we reverse the trial ruling concerning Mill- court’s the effect of Linda remarriage er’s on of survivors’ loss the amount remaining dependent benefits due to the survivors.

V conclusion, In to the extent the lower foregoing contrary courts’ decisions are to the 410 Mich by J. Levin, is remanded This case reversed. are they analysis, consis- proceedings for further court to the circuit opinion. this tent with

Fitzgerald Jr., JJ., Moody, con- Blair Ryan, J. with curred except as to IV.

Williams, I concur J. part). dissenting Levin, (concurring part, J. opinion of IIIA of the with Part I concur taxes in calcu- Court, adjustment an requiring 3108, and under loss benefits lating survivors’ survi- recomputation IV, requiring Part surviving remarriage of a upon vors’ however, conclusion dissent, from the I spouse. personal no adjustment IIIB that Part Also, I be made. the decedent need expenditures what, than other question not reach would "contributions wages, constitutes contributions value” to survivors of economic tangible things alleged or The have plaintiffs 3108. under § from sources of contributions evidence offered question and therefore wages, than other us. not before liability provides act no-fault motor vehicle injured lost by of income

for reimbursement If the injury. result of his as a person family or accident, pro- act person survives injured loss, income of his own vides for reimbursement loses while wages the amount of he measured loss”). ("work If not survive he does he is disabled accident, for reimbursement provides the act his measured family, of the income lost him for have received from amount would they their support. mea- two different thus used Legislature

The situations, loss consist- work for two different sures v State Farm Ins Opinion by Levin, J. ing injured person of income from work the is perform injury unable to because his where he injury, survives his and lost contributions to the family’s support primary where he dies. The differ- wages ence between the two is that exclusively committed personal expenditures to the of the injured person part are of work loss but are not part of the amount that would have been contrib- family. uted for the injured person of the What spent

would have on himself could family’s support. not have been contributed to his opinion of the Court concludes that these personal expenditures need not be subtracted from wages calculating total the amount injured person who dies would have contributed to family’s support. typi- his Since this subtraction is cally, only case, and in this difference between effectively measures, the two the Court erases the by distinction drawn the statute and makes lost wages the measure of income both situa- tions.

I dissent because I can see no basis for constru- ing clearly out of the statute a distinction that is Legislature there. Had the intended that lost wages be the measure in situations, both it would not have used two different measures for the two different situations. The rationales advanced construing the Court for this distinction out of the persuasive. analysis statute are not An purposes and antecedents of the survivors’ loss provision indicates that intended language the different result in a different measure.

The first rationale advanced the Court legislative history namely based on act, adoption of the Senate version the act rather than the substitute offered the House. 410 Mich by Opinion Levin, J. as the loss of loss survivors’ bills defined Both would have the deceased that "contributions” family, substitute the House to his made expenses adding of the survivors "less the clause by The Court death”. of decedent’s reason avoided adopting version without the that in concludes avoided of the survivors subtraction that no indicated the the personal ex- for the made should be subtraction penditures computing survivors’ deceased of the loss. acknowledges we have no evi- that

The Court give legislative that led to and take dence of the adoption than that of the rather the Senate bill particular this difference House, or of whether choice, in that a factor the two bills was between Legisla- factor, the what or, if difference was a this including accomplish by the ture intended question doubt, I whether much clause. With so is an one bill over another mere choice of negating clearly adequate a distinction basis language present act. of the in the language "deleted” clause Moreover, it what the Court to make mean must be strained expen- straining personal Only by can asserts. "expenses considered of the deceased be ditures decedent’s reason of the survivors avoided death”. meaning clause, one which

The correct refer to the it not intended to indicates that was personal expenditures, is revealed deceased’s the model act from which the comments to clause was drawn. The given example there is require from a the subtraction the clause would to the fam- child’s financial contributions deceased rearing ily family’s expenses in the child. recognizes the measure of survi- The Court State Farm Ins Miller v Levin, J. patterned no-fault act was under the loss vors’ wrong- under measure of survivors’ after compen- wrongful acts death Under ful death acts. sating loss, however, measure of earnings. recovery A must be reduction not total expenditures personal of the de- made for ceased. on model acts

Further, comments to both that recov- state act was based the no-fault which rigorously ery confined to more to be was intended wrongful pecuniary under most loss than actual Failing the amount of to subtract death acts. spent exclusively wages have the deceased would family to his himself, than contributed rather on allowing by support, this intent actually defeats for their recovery lost. of an amount by the Court is that offered

The second rationale expense disproportionate difficulty of cal- personal culating for the decedent’s the reduction legislative expenditures is inconsistent expeditious purpose with- settlement of claims time-consuming complex, controversies. factual out negate purpose a distinction of such a The use clearly a trouble- in the statute establishes drawn precedent. all factual Court to review Is this some arguably the áct for under called determinations That effectiveness? of their cost on the basis clearly not the Court’s role. understanding difficulty how

Moreover, I have reject as inconsis- this calculation the Court can purpose, the Court con- act’s when tent with the virtually requires identical a the act cludes surviving spouse her loses when a calculation remarriage. upon dependency In the latter status requires situation, that the act Court concludes payments of survivors’ a reduction "would that the deceased of contributions amount 410 Mich Levin, J. disqualified solely of the for the benefit have made dependent”. analogous to the This calculation is have been amount that would calculation of the spent solely deceased, for the benefit time-consuming. surely no less difficult or will be requires agree a that the act such calcu- allWe dependent. disqualified Such lation as to the cannot, to the deceased consistent calculation as rejected contrary conclusion, to the as with that purposes the act.

I legislative analysis A of the Court’s detailed argument history illustrates its weaknesses. language substantially bill of the Senate was language as the enacted: "contributions same * * * * * * * * * dependents of the deceased support”.1 The House would have received provided, part: bill "contributions substitute * * * would have received from that his survivors * * *, the decedent less survivors by reason of decedent’s death”.2 The Court avoided imputes significance adoption to the Senate rather, substitute, than the House which had bill failing expen- the effect of to enact the clause "less ses of the survivors avoided reason of decedent’s death”. ground attempts

A court on it insecure when legislative enactment, to derive intent from the explanation, without of one bill rather than an- although firmer, A other.3 court is on somewhat 1 pertinent quoted The section of the Senate bill is in full in fn 5 of opinion. the Court’s 2 pertinent quoted section of the House substitute is in full in opinion. fn 6 of the Court’s 3 (CA States, 518, 4, 1949), Jefferson v United 178 F2d 520 aff'd sub States, 135; 153; nom Feres United 340 US 95 L Ed 152 v S Ct (1950) . State Farm v Ins Opinion by Levin, J. ground express solid, it when reasons from the Here, however, a or defeat of bill amendment.4 we express rejection do not have an of the alternative any vote. Nor do we have evidence that Legislature upon attention of the particular was focused this bills, difference between the two much why Legislature less evidence of deleted the clause if indeed the deletion was intentional. recognizes explicative

The Court the lack of floor reports, debate and committee and states: myriad "The legislative activities that attend the course, process having run their 1972 PA 294 was containing language enacted consistent with that of * * * Bill Senate No. 782 and without the clause which appeared in the House substitute bill.” Supreme observed, As the United States Court has interpretation safely "[t]he of statutes cannot upon legislative made to rest mute intermediate maneuvers”.5

Assuming legislative that some intent can be gleaned from the choice of the Senate bill rather substitute, than the House construction adopted persuasive. First, the Court is not it requires a strained construction of the clause the purposely Court concludes was deleted. That required "expen- clause would have a reduction for ses of the survivors avoided reason of the by deleting that, decedent’s death”. To conclude preclude clause, this intended to wages spent per- reduction for on decedent’s expenses requires concluding Legis- sonal personal expenses lature considered the decedent’s 4Liquor 629, Eagles, Control Comm v Fraternal Order of Aerie No 32, (1938). 43-44; 286 Mich 281 NW 427 Whirls, 40, 61; 982; Trailmobile Co v 331 US 67 S Ct 91 L Ed (1947). 410 Mich 538

580 by Opinion Levin, J. "expenses of the survivors”. This is an un to be light particularly construction, of the warranted expressly construction, more reasonable confirmed by commentary from to the model act which "expenses apparently drawn, that the clause was of the survivors” was intended to refer to such raising things parent’s child, as a cost in a which parent’s generally recovery is subtracted from the upon wrongful for lost contributions death of or her child. his

Second, both bills defined survivors’ loss as the the decedent loss of "contributions” would dependents. part have made to his It is this question definition that is critical to the personal for the decedent’s whether expenditures subtraction required. When consideration of expenses” drops being the "less clause out as question, irrelevant to this the two bills must be virtually seen as identical in their critical lan- guage. apart

Where decedent had lived from his dependents and had made contributions to their example, monthly form, in earnings checks, the amount of his devoted to his expenses part own could not have been a of his 1(a)(5)(iv) 1(a)(5)(v), The official comments to UMVARA §§ replacement which define "survivor’s economic loss” and "survivor’s expenses services loss” and which use the clause avoided "less state: the survivors by death”, reason of decedent’s necessary expenses "It is also to subtract which survivors death, although avoided reason of the decedent’s the same avoided expenses cannot be subtracted twice from both survivor’s economic replacement example, loss and survivor’s of services loss. For in the case regularly personal of a death child who had small contributed earnings home, family performed to his services in the there might replacement no survivor’s economic loss or survivor’s ser- vices loss after the avoided reason of his death were earnings replacement from subtracted the value of the and the cost of ULA, family.” services he would have contributed to the Civil Laws, and Remedial Uniform Motor Accident Procedural Vehicle Act, Reparations p 55. Farm Ins State v Levin, J. statutory application contributions. is clear —the survi- a situation such language have actually to what would only entitled vors are however, concludes, The Court contributed. been sharing a house- had been the decedent that when language statutory dependents, his hold with case, the meaning. In such a is to have a different would have not to what only are entitled survivors have contributed, to what would but also been ex- personal the decedent’s own to been devoted not for such provide does The statute penses. according to whether treatment differential dependents. his living with had been- decedent compensate survi- Third, the act to construing actually they would for contributions vors the intent of the with received is inconsistent have antecedents, rigorously act, its as evidenced pecuniary to actual measure of loss confine the loss. Basic Protec- the Motor Vehicle

The drafters of (MVBPIA)7 the Uniform Act tion Insurance (UM- Act Reparations Accident Vehicle Motor VARA),8 upon by model acts relied the two act, had simi- drafting Michigan The authors’ loss”. goals defining "survivors’ lar 1.9(e) state: of the MVBPIA comments on § " way in a somewhat loss’ is defined '[S]urvivors’ acts, damages death but for under similar to standards genuine economic rigorous a more adherence supplied.)9 (Emphasis than under most death acts.” 1(a)(5)(iv) and Comments to The Commissioners’ §§ 1(a)(5)(v) of the UMVARA state:_ 7 opinion. 7 Court’s See fn of the 8 opinion. fn 8 of the Court’s See O’Connell, A for the Traffic Victim: Basic Protection Keeton & (Little, Co, Reforming & Blueprint Insurance Brown Automobile for 1965), p 400. Mich Opinion by Levin, J. " replace- 'Survivor’s economic loss’ and 'survivor’s way analogous ment services loss’ are defined in a damages wrongful that, except standards death 'replacement as is the case for 'work loss’ and services loss,’ rigorously allowable items are more limited to genuine economic loss.” (Emphasis supplied.)10 although acknowledges

Fourth, the Court Legislature’s acts, on reliance the model as explained by quoted above, authors’ comments indicates "an intent should at loss death that survivors’ loss benefits roughly correspond

least to economic damages wrongful recoverable under our clearly

act”, the Court’s construction is at odds with the measure of survivor’s loss under the wrongful death act. clarify point,

To this it is useful to contrast recovery historical differences between under the recovery wrongful survival act and death act.11 claimed as the Since the under plaintiff act, Under the survival representative of the deceased. plaintiff was entitled to recover what the deceased would have received had death not oc- personal consumption curred, no reduction for the required.12 of the deceased was wrongful Under the act, death the focus shifted to the loss suffered the survivors reason of the decedent’s death. This focus on the survivors’ replicated determining loss is in 3108. When long loss, it has been the law in Michi gan, personal expenditures elsewhere, that the of the decedent must be subtracted. As was ex plained Sipes Michigan v CR Co:13_ 10 6, supra. See fn 1937, The two actions were combined in so that both must now brought wrongful 600.2922; under the current death act. MCL MSA 27A.2922. Houghton County Co, Olivier v Street-Railway 242; 138 Mich (1904). NW 530 13Sipes Michigan Co, 404, 407-408; v C R 231 Mich 204 NW 84 v State Farm Ins Opinion by Levin, J.

"This is suit to recover the loss to decedent’s prospective estate earnings, only of his but to recover pecuniary the Such for the loss sustained his widow and child. loss, event, in no could approximate earnings, his expense of his own would needs have to be met along with the needs of his family.” The plain language of the act indicates that a survivor cannot recover what would have been spent on the personal expenditures, decedent’s since such amount could not be contributed for their I support. would not depart plausible reading from most language an reading favor of alternative based on "mute legislative maneuvers”, intermediate especially where an of the model analysis act antecedents 3108 indicates that the clause at issue had noth- ing to do with a personal reduction for the expen- ditures the decedent.

The Court’s reading of the legislative history requires concluding intended to define survivor’s loss in a manner inconsistent with the standard of damages under wrongful actions, spite death recognition of the Court’s patterned act was after such standards. plausible most reading of the statutory lan- guage, requiring as a reduction for the decedent’s personal expenditures, is consistent with those standards and with goal, expressed in the acts, commentary to both model to more rigorously confine recovery genuine economic loss._ (1925), partially issue, Hardwick, overruled on another Bunda v 376 (1965). 640; CJS, Death, 101, Mich 920-921: pp NW2d 305 See also 25A earnings, “The amount recoverable is not the of the entire but portion earnings rather beneficiary the loss of that of the which the Moreover, only earnings, gross earnings, would have received. net not considered, is, to earnings are that the total of the less necessary income, earnings living in the creation of or such and less expenses.” (Emphasis supplied.) and other incidental Mich Levin, J. II Court for its offered reason The second intend a did that conclusion personal expenditures decedent’s for the reduction provide to no-fault act goal of general is the without of claims expeditious settlement for the factual controversies. complex recogni- the Court’s in full sympathy I am calculation, in such inherent of the difficulties tion of the calculation cost disproportionate normally that will amounts of the small light the use of I do not consider Since be subtracted. average personal consump- of evidence statistical with the be consistent of members family tion genuine economic loss requirement act’s determined, I rec- must survivors be of individual 3108 which I the construction ognize a time-consum- often necessitate think correct will factual inquiry. and difficult ing gen- is indeed one of Expeditious reparation general purposes, of the act. Such purposes eral however, wisdom much less our assessment choice, Legislature’s or cost-effectiveness a factual out of act reading cannot our justify by it. required determination examples sev- Further, the Court cites as while designed expedite resolution provisions eral claims, determina- recognizes it that a factual also character as is involved the same precisely tion allocable determining the amount income required expenditures decedent’s personal depen- his or her spouse the act when a loses upon remarriage: dency status being paid aggregate of survivors’ loss benefits "[T]he prior to survivors for the benefit all the decedent’s be reduced of one of them should disqualification State Miller v Farm 585 Ins Opinion by Levin, J. only by equal the amount tangi- the contributions of things ble of value that the economic deceased would solely have made the benefit of disqualified the dependent.”

The factual determination required by such a equivalent required reduction is to that in calcu- lating the of personal expenditures deceased, the the personal expenditures with of the disqualified dependent substituted for those the of deceased. therefore, cannot, properly One conclude that such a factual determination is necessarily inconsistent the general act’s purpose expediting the settlement of claims. persuaded

I am that the Legislature intended that income that would have been committed personal the expenditures the decedent should not be an considered as economic loss the survi- Indeed, vors. the Court argue does not wages loss of that would have been on spent decedent is an actually economic loss of survi- vors. Obviously, survivors cannot be considered to have lost what they never would have received. To 3108 construe otherwise general defeats goal of reducing cost of no-fault insurance through rigorously confining damages genuine economic loss.

Where the injured person survives the automo- accident, Legislature bile expressly provided for full recovery wages.14 lost injured Where the dies, person the Legislature did wages not use lost but, as the rather, measure damages shifted to the survivors’ loss sup- of contributions to their port. The Court in effect rewrites the statute those cases where the decedent had lived with the to shift the measure back to lost

14 24.13107(b). 500.3107(b); MCL MSA Mich Levin, J. has not what simply This wages. provided. under hold would

I expen- personal on spent income include does trial to the remand decedent ditures this with consistent proceedings further court opinion. Kavanagh, J., concurred C.J., and

Coleman, Levin, J.

Case Details

Case Name: Miller v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Court Name: Michigan Supreme Court

Date Published: Mar 10, 1981

Citation: 302 N.W.2d 537

Docket Number: Docket Nos. 62962, 62963. (Calendar No. 13)

Court Abbreviation: Mich.