Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 302954; Unpublished
Judges Fort Hood, Hoekstra, and Meter; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the issue raised here – whether the defendant no-fault insurer must reimburse the plaintiff for amounts that he is later required reimburse his health insurer should he be successful in recovering noneconomic damages in a separate tort suit – was not ripe for adjudication because the claim was “contingent on future events that may not occur as anticipated or at all.”
In this case, the plaintiff sustained a serious elbow while riding as a passenger in a vehicle that was involved in an accident with another vehicle that turned in front of the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff carried a coordinated or excess no-fault insurance policy with the defendant, and he also carried a health insurance policy with a German company, Central Krankenversicherung AG (“Central”), that paid about $75,000 in medical bills and related expenses that were incurred as a result of the accident.
Plaintiff initially filed a complaint alleging that defendant refused to make payments that were required under the policy, and plaintiff also filed a separate tort claim against the driver of the other vehicle seeking noneconomic damages. Shortly thereafter, Central notified the plaintiff that pursuant to German law, it was going to seek reimbursement for the medical expenses out of any amounts the plaintiff recovered in his tort suit. The plaintiff subsequently amended his complaint against defendant additionally seeking reimbursement from defendant in the event that plaintiff had to reimburse Central should he recover in the tort suit.
The plaintiff and the defendant went on to settle all issues except for the issue regarding the reimbursement to plaintiff in for amounts he was required to pay Central out of any future tort recovery. The parties then filed cross motions for summary disposition, and the trial court entered a declaratory judgment in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that “in the event plaintiff is required to reimburse his health insurance carrier from his tort recovery for any amounts paid . . . [defendant] must reimburse plaintiff the same amount.”
This appeal followed, and defendant argued that the trial court improperly applied federal law instead of Michigan law. However, instead of addressing the defendant’s arguments, the Court of Appeals raised sua sponte the issue of whether the matter was even ripe for adjudication given the fact that the tort suit had not yet been decided. Ultimately the court held that it was not, reasoning that:
"Here, the trial court decided an indemnification claim that was not ripe because it rested on two contingent future events: (1) that plaintiff would recover from the allegedly negligent driver in tort, and (2) that plaintiff would be required to reimburse the primary insurer out of his tort recovery. There is no indication in the record that plaintiff has or will recover in tort, or that the primary insurer has or will recover any money obtained by plaintiff as a result of the tort lawsuit. Thus, the claim rests upon two contingent future events that are also contingent upon each other, i.e. plaintiff’s primary insurer will not attempt to obtain reimbursement if plaintiff does not recover in tort. Declaratory relief was not appropriate because there is no actual controversy, the entire claim is premised on the idea that defendant hypothetically might have to reimburse plaintiff if a future contingent event occurs. Because the only issue addressed by the trial court was contingent on future events that may not occur as anticipated or at all, the issue was not ripe for adjudication and the trial court should not have granted declaratory relief."
For these reasons, the court went on to vacate the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff, stating that it “need not reach the question of whether the trial court properly determined defendant would be required to reimburse plaintiff in the event that plaintiff is required to reimburse Central.”
