Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 132789; Unpublished
Judges Jansen, Cavanagh, and Schaefer; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Medical Insurance [§3109a]
Persons Affected by Coordination [§3109a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Equitable Estoppel
Reformation of Insurance Contracts
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that issuance by the insurance company of endorsements providing for coordination of PIP benefits were ineffective as to a motor vehicle accident which had occurred prior to the date that those endorsements were issued.
Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident on August 11,1988, while in the course of his employment with Jeep Corporation. The vehicle he was operating was insured under a policy issued to his employer. In addition to the policy, the insurance company issued endorsements providing for coordination of benefits with any wage loss and medical benefits that the insured was eligible to receive. However, although the effective date of the policy was April 1,1988, the endorsements providing for coordination of benefits were not prepared or issued until January 3,1989, more than four months after the date of the accident.
Plaintiff claimed that the policy was not coordinated by the after-issued endorsements. The plaintiff sought full PIP benefits without coordination. In ruling in favor of the plaintiff, the court rejected Home Insurance Company's arguments that the date the endorsements were prepared was inconsequential to the date upon which they became effective.
The court stated that it is axiomatic that the liability of an insurer becomes absolute once the injury or damage implicating coverage takes place. The court construed the endorsements prepared after the accident as an attempt at "annulling coverage" after the insurable event had already taken place. The fact that the parties opted to coordinate coverage in the past had no bearing on the present case where it is clear from the face of the policy that the endorsements were not included at the policy's inception.
The ruling of the trial court in favor of the plaintiff was therefore affirmed.
