Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 418 / Act 317 of 1969
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.118 (2026)

Domestic servants.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

WORKER'S DISABILITY COMPENSATION ACT OF 1969


Act 317 of 1969


418.118 Domestic servants.

Sec. 118.

    (1) No household domestic servant shall be considered an employee if the person is a wife, child or other member of the employer's family residing in the home, and no householder shall be deemed a statutory principal within the meaning of section 171 for the purposes of this section.

    (2) No private employer shall be liable under this act to any person who is employed by him as a household domestic servant for less than 35 hours per week for 13 weeks or longer during the preceding 52 weeks, notwithstanding the provisions of section 611 or any other provision of this act, unless such person assume liability under section 121.

    (3) A household domestic servant or domestic as used in this act means a person who engages in work or activity relating to the operation of a household and its surroundings whether or not he resides therein.

History: 1969, Act 317, Eff. Dec. 31, 1969

PopularName Notes:

Act 317
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1972–2006 · leading case: Howard Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 547 U.S. 651 (2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Howard Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 547 U.S. 651 (2006). · cites it 2× “§ 50-6-106 (5) (2005); Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.118 (2) (1979). Not only will application of the priority depend on varying state laws, but also multistate workers' compensation plans may have to be segmented for purposes of determining bankruptcy priorities.”
Sewell v. Clearing Mach. Corp., 347 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 2× “ently poses a question of fact, as where, for example, the controversy centers upon whether the worker was an "independent contractor" outside the coverage of the act, see Nichol v Billot, 406 Mich 284, 298 ; 279 NW2d 761 (1979); Hyslop v Klein, 85 Mich App 149 ; 270 NW2d 540…”
Sanchez v. Eagle Alloy, Inc., 658 N.W.2d 510 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003). “115; domestic workers, MCL 418.118; real estate brokers, MCL 418.”
Eastway v. Eisenga, 362 N.W.2d 684 (Mich. 1985). · cites it 2× “MCL 418.118; MSA 17.237(118). Section 161(2) of the act provides that a spouse of an employer may be excluded from coverage by indorsement of a policy or contract of workers' compensation insurance.”
Higgins v. Monroe Evening News, 272 N.W.2d 537 (Mich. 1978). “3 MCL 418.118; MSA 17.237(118). 4 See 81 Am Jur 2d, Workmen’s Compensation, §§ 116 et seq.”
Levinson v. Payson, 252 N.W.2d 567 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). · cites it 2× “See MCLA 418.118(2); MSA 17.237(118)(2). The trial court's ruling that plaintiff's sole remedy was under the Worker's Disability Compensation Act is not supported by the record as the necessary preliminary findings, that the defendants were employers of the plaintiff and liable…”
Luster v. Five Star Carpet Installations, Inc., 609 N.W.2d 859 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000). “237(115), and MCL 418.118; MSA 17.237(118)] may assume the liability for compensation and benefits imposed by this act upon employers.”
Neff v. Hillcrest Drive-In, 250 N.W.2d 71 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). “5 We deliberately ignore possible technical arguments for both parties based on MCLA 418.118; MSA 17.237(118) in order to directly address the substantive liability question involved.”
Levinson v. Payson, 198 N.W.2d 913 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “Plaintiff argues that since she was a domestic worker in defendants' home, defendants are not liable under the workmen's compensation act, MCLA 418.118; MSA 17.237(118), and are not protected by it.”
Bendion v. Penobscot Mgmt. Co., 570 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “While concluding that, pursuant to MCL 418.118(2); MSA 17.237(118)(2), plaintiff’s work as a domestic for the Kamiennys was not covered employment under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.”
Levinson v. Payson, 40 Mich. App. 415 (Mich. Ct. App. 1972). “Plaintiff argues that since she was a domestic worker in defendants’ home, defendants are not liable under the workmen’s compensation act, MCLA 418.118; MSA 17.237(118), and are not protected by it.”
Howard Delivery Serv., Inc. v. Zurich Am. Ins., 342 S. Ct. 2105 (2006). “§ 50-6-106(5) (2005); Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.118 (2) (1981). Not only will application of the priority depend on varying state laws, but also multistate workers’ compensation plans may have to be segmented for purposes of determining bankruptcy priorities.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 418.118(2) — 3 cases
Sewell v. Clearing Mach. Corp., 347 N.W.2d 447 (Mich. 1984). “ently poses a question of fact, as where, for example, the controversy centers upon whether the worker was an "independent contractor" outside the coverage of the act, see Nichol v Billot, 406 Mich 284, 298 ; 279 NW2d 761 (1979); Hyslop v Klein, 85 Mich App 149 ; 270 NW2d 540…”
Levinson v. Payson, 252 N.W.2d 567 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977). “See MCLA 418.118(2); MSA 17.237(118)(2). The trial court's ruling that plaintiff's sole remedy was under the Worker's Disability Compensation Act is not supported by the record as the necessary preliminary findings, that the defendants were employers of the plaintiff and liable…”
Bendion v. Penobscot Mgmt. Co., 570 N.W.2d 473 (Mich. Ct. App. 1997). “While concluding that, pursuant to MCL 418.118(2); MSA 17.237(118)(2), plaintiff’s work as a domestic for the Kamiennys was not covered employment under the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), MCL 418.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.