Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #275318; Unpublished
Judges Cooper, Murphy, and Neff; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Uninsured Motorist Coverage in General
Workers Compensation Disability Act
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for defendant State Farm, finding that where an injured person is entitled to both workers’ compensation and no-fault benefits, the workers’ compensation lien is limited in scope. Because the lien is limited in scope, a provision in State Farm’s policy which provided that there is no right to coverage where such coverage would benefit another insurer is inapplicable.
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a motor vehicle accident during the course of her employment, when an uninsured driver struck plaintiff’s vehicle. Plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits and filed an action against State Farm, his no-fault insurer, for uninsured benefits. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition. In so ruling, the court reasoned that due to a provision in the State Farm policy which provided there is no uninsurance coverage where such coverage would benefit a workers’ compensation carrier, and, pursuant to MCL 418.827(5) which provides that the workers’ compensation carrier may recoup money paid under the Workers’ Compensation Act from any recovery against a third-party, uninsured benefits would benefit the workers’ compensation carrier and were, therefore, excluded.
The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. In so ruling, it relied on the holding in Great American Insurance Company v Queen, 410 Mich 73 (1980) [Item No. 247], in which the Michigan Supreme Court held that where the workers’ compensation carrier seeks reimbursement for payment which substituted for no-fault benefits otherwise payable, it is not entitled to reimbursement. It then noted that because this case involves the interplay of workers’ compensation and no-fault benefits, the trial court improperly failed to acknowledge Queen and the legal principles applicable when an employee is injured in a motor vehicle accident during the course of employment. In this circumstance, workers’ compensation benefits may be considered a substitute for no-fault benefits. Where workers’ compensation benefits are a substitute for no-fault benefits, the workers’ compensation insurer is not entitled to reimbursement. Therefore, because the workers’ compensation reimbursement would be limited in scope, State Farm’s policy exclusion may be inapplicable. However, the court declined to render an opinion because the parties did not appropriately argue the merits of their claims in the proper legal context. In this regard, the court stated:
“Because this case involves the interplay of workers’ compensation and no-fault benefits, the trial court erred in . . . failing to acknowledge Queen and the particular legal principles applicable when an employee is injured in an automobile accident during the course of employment. In this circumstance, worker’s compensation benefits may be considered a substitute for no-fault benefits. . . . [A]ny workers’ compensation reimbursement in this case would be limited in scope and, thus, the policy exclusion may be inapplicable to plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim. However, we decline to render an opinion in this regard. Given the nuances of this area of law, it is incumbent upon the parties to appropriately argue the merits of their claims in the proper legal context, for decision by the trial court in the first instance. Reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
