Supreme Court Grants to Consider Whether Governmental Entities are Liable for “Wage Loss” Damages Under No-Fault Act

The Michigan Supreme Court has granted leave to appeal to address whether the “motor vehicle” exception to governmental immunity allows parties to seek economic damages in the form of “wage loss”, for bodily injuries arising out of motor vehicle accidents in which a governmental entity is involved.  The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) allows suit for “bodily injury and property damage” arising out of negligent operation of a motor vehicle by a governmental party.  MCL 691.1405.  Michigan’s No-Fault Act allows for the recovery of economic damages,  including wage loss.  MCL 500.3135(3)(c).

Plaintiff was injured in an accident with a salt truck operated by the state of Michigan, Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT).  Plaintiff sued the state claiming economic damages, including “wage loss”, and non-economic damages for serious impairment of a bodily function, both of which are ordinarily recoverable under the No-Fault Act.

MDOT argued the GTLA waives the government’s suit immunity for “bodily injury” claims only, not any broader claims associated with such injury.  MDOT cited Weschler v. Mecosta County Rd. Comm’n, 480 Mich. 75, 85 (2008), which defined the term “bodily injury” under the GTLA’s motor vehicle exception as “physical or corporeal injury to the body”.  Weschler held “loss of consortium” was not recoverable under the “motor vehicle exception”.  Id.

In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals held that work-loss benefits and benefits for ordinary and necessary services that exceed the statutory personal protection insurance benefit maximum pursuant to MCL 500.3135(3) are awardable against governmental entities. (Under the No-Fault Act there is a provision allowing for recovery of damages in excess of the daily, monthly, and three-year limitations contained in the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3107 through MCL 500.3110)).

The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court’s determination to award Plaintiff “lost earning potential” as a dental hygienist even though, before her injury, she had not yet completed her education in that field of study.  Hannay v. MDOT.COA.Opinion

In its grant order, the Supreme Court requests briefing on the issues of whether economic damages in the form of “wage loss” are recoverable under the GTLA’s motor vehicle exception (citing Weschler), and, if so, referring to the Court of Appeals ruling affirming the trial court’s award of “projected earnings”, whether loss of income from work, only, or lost earning capacity may be awarded.  Read the Court’s order here:  Hannay v. MDOT

This is a significant case likely to garner much attention.  MDOT’s argument is in line with the jurisdictional principle adhered to in Michigan concerning governmental immunity, and with the strict interpretation to be given to provisions waiving the government’s suit immunity.  If one adheres strictly to these principles, then the No-Fault Act would likely yield to the narrow confines of liability that can be imposed against the government under the GTLA.

The Court invites Insurance Institute of Michigan, Michigan Association of Justice, and the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel to submit briefs amicus curiae to address the question.

About cjtucker06

Owner of law firm since July 2014; Handles all types of appellate matters and assists other lawyers with complex litigation and insurance coverage issues; Admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the State Bar of Michigan; Expertise in prosecuting and defending appeals with several significant successes in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals; Author of briefs amicus curiae in the Michigan Supreme Court for the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel and the Insurance Institute of Michigan; Represents Insurance Companies, Major International Business, Governmental Entities, Law Enforcement Officers and County Sheriffs. Board of Directors, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel Amicus Committee Co-Chair, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel Military - Retired Major in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps of the United States Army, Brigade Judge Advocate and Staff JAG officer for the Maneuver Training Center, Camp Grayling, Michigan; Recipient of the Army's Meritorious Service Medal (the highest medal of honor available to Soldiers serving in non-combat roles); 2012 Graduate of the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course, at The Judge Advocate Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, Virginia. United States Navy Reserves, Combat Warfare Qualification, January 1989 to July 2003 Former law clerk to Justice Stephen J. Markman, Michigan Supreme Court, Research Attorney, Michigan Court of Appeals. Insurance Coverage Associate Plunkett Cooney; Environmental Law Attorney at Squire Sanders, now Squire Patton Boggs; Master's Degree in Environmental Law; Environmental Law Scholar, ALI/ABA Washington, D.C., Juris Doctorate, Vermont Law School, Environmental Editor, Vermont Law Review; Treasurer and Finalist, Moot Court Advisory Board.
Gallery | This entry was posted in Automobile Insurance Claims, Governmental Immunity, Insurance and Indemnity, May It Please the Court, Michigan Court of Appeals Published Opinions, Michigan No-Fault Insurance, Michigan Supreme Court Opinions, No-Fault Law, Public Corporations, Recent Judicial Dispositions and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s