Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 195679; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Holbrook, Jr., and Jansen; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Medical Insurance [§3109a]
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Disability Insurance [§3109a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals ruled that even though the declarations page of American Fellowship's insurance policy was unclear as to whether or not it provided for "coordinated' benefits, extrinsic evidence established that plaintiff had in fact purchased a coordinated policy and had no reasonable expectation for uncoordinated benefits coverage.
Plaintiff, having received injuries in a motor vehicle accident, claimed entitlement to uncoordinated benefits from American Fellowship. American Fellowship, conversely, contended that plaintiff’s independent health insurance benefits were required to be coordinated with the benefits claimed from American Fellowship. The declaration page of plaintiffs insurance policy in the personal injury protection column contained the reference "MED/WAG." Plaintiff argued that because the declaration page did not indicate that there was a coordination of benefits, defendant was obligated to provide uncoordinated coverage. Defendant argued that the reference "MED/WAG" on the declaration page, when considered in the context of other proofs, showed that plaintiff had requested and purchased coordinated medical and wage loss benefits.
In reversing the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of the plaintiff, and entering summary disposition in favor of American Fellowship, the Court of Appeals held:
"Here, defendant has introduced evidence that plaintiff sought and purchased coordinated medical and wage loss benefits. It is proper to consider the extrinsic evidence advanced by defendant in this case because the term 'MED/WAG' on the declarations page is ambiguous. Therefore, the parties' intent must be ascertained and the agreement enforced according to that intent."
In this case, the application for insurance coverage showed that plaintiff had purchased a coordinated personal injury protection policy. Therefore, notwithstanding the use of the unclear term "MED/WAG" on the declaration page, it is clear that the plaintiff applied for and purchased coordinated medical and wage loss benefits. Under these circumstances, plaintiff could not have reasonably expected uncoordinated benefits coverage.
