[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]

The following opinion is presented on-line for informational use only and does not replace the official version. (Mich Dept of Attorney General Web Site - www.ag.state.mi.us)



STATE OF MICHIGAN

FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL


Opinion No. 6155

June 21, 1983

INSURANCE:

No fault act--recovery of benefits by spouse of injured person

A spouse may recover the reasonable value of his or her services performed for the injured person's care, recovery or rehabilitation under the no fault act, 1956 PA 218, Sec. 3107.

Honorable Perry Bullard

State Representative

The Capitol

Lansing, Michigan

You have requested my opinion as to the following question:

'Does MCLA 500.3107 preclude benefits payable to a spouse for the reasonable value of services performed for the injured person's care, recovery or rehabilitation, where but for the marital status, such benefits would be payable?'

The no fault act, 1956 PA 218, Sec. 3107; MCLA 500.3107; MSA 24.13107, reads, in part:

'Personal protection insurance benefits are payable for the following:

'(a) Allowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person's care, recovery or rehabilitation. Allowable expenses within personal protection insurance coverage shall not include charges for a hospital room in excess of a reasonable and customary charge for semiprivate accommodations except when the injured person requires special or intensive care, or charges for funeral and burial expenses in excess of $1,000.00.

'(b) Work loss consisting of loss of income from work an injured person would have performed during the first 3 years after the date of the accident if he had not been injured and expenses not exceeding $20.00 per day, reasonably incurred in obtaining ordinary and necessary services in lieu of those that, if he had not been injured, an injured person would have performed during the first 3 years after the date of the accident, not for income but for the benefit of himself or of his dependent. . . .'

This provision has been recently interpreted in two Michigan Court of Appeals cases. In Visconti v Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, 90 Mich App 477, 482; 282 NW2d 360 (1979), the plaintiff was injured while stepping from his automobile and sought recovery for services provided by his spouse who quit her job to care for him. The Court of Appeals found the provisions of section 3107 to be similar to the workers disability compensation statute, 1969 PA 317, Sec. 315; MCLA 418.315; MSA 17.237(315). In an earlier case, the Court of Appeals, in Dunaj v Harry Becker Co, 52 Mich App 354; 217 NW2d 397 (1974), lv den 394 Mich 839 (1975), held that under 1969 PA 317, Sec. 315, supra, an employer was liable for the services rendered by the employee's wife during his disability. This ruling was supported subsequently by the Michigan Supreme Court in Kushay v Sexton Dairy Co, 394 Mich 69; 228 NW2d 205 (1975), where the Michigan Supreme Court interpreted the workers disability compensation statute as embracing services provided by a spouse. The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded in Visconti, supra, that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover for the wife's services, stating:

'Both worker's disability compensation and automobile insurance are no-fault systems. It is reasonable to interpret these systems in a like manner when these statutory provisions appear to be affecting similar policies. In accordance with the above reasoning, we hold that the services performed in the case at bar are compensable under the no-fault act.'

It should also be noted that the no fault act, 1956 PA 218, Sec. 3107(a), supra, is part of remedial legislation to be broadly construed to effectuate coverage. BASF Wyandotte Co v Transport Insurance Co, 523 F Supp 515 (ED Mich, 1981).

It is my opinion, therefore, that a spouse is entitled to compensation under 1956 PA 218, Sec. 3107(a), supra, for the reasonable value of his or her services performed for the injured person's care, recovery or rehabilitation.

Frank J. Kelley

Attorney General


[ Previous Page]  [ Home Page ]