Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 147586; Published
Judges Weaver, Murphy, and Jansen; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 202 Mich App 361; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Standards for Deductibility of State and Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
Other State No-Fault Benefits [§3109(1)]
12% Interest Penalty on Overdue Benefits – Nature and Scope [§3142(2), (3)]
Requirement That Benefits Were Unreasonably Delayed or Denied [§3148(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Civil Judgments and Interest (MCL 600.6013)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that defendant was not entitled to offset from the payment of no-fault first-party benefits the amounts plaintiff received under a Pennsylvania insurance policy that provided benefits for injuries sustained in a Michigan accident.
Plaintiff was injured when her bicycle was struck by an automobile which was insured by defendant. Plaintiff, a resident of Pennsylvania, was visiting her grandparents in Michigan at the time of the accident. Plaintiff received $10,000 in medical benefits under a Pennsylvania no-fault automobile insurance policy issued to her parents pursuant to Pennsylvania law. Defendant claimed that under §3109 of the Michigan no-fault act, it was entitled to offset from its obligation to pay no-fault first-party benefits the amounts received by plaintiff under the Pennsylvania policy. The circuit court rejected the argument of defendant and granted plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition, holding that defendant was not entitled to a setoff under § 3109.
The Court of Appeals upheld the circuit court's ruling that defendant was not entitled to a setoff. Section 3109 of the no-fault act provides for a setoff of government benefits that serve the same purpose as no-fault benefits and are paid as a result of the same accident. While the benefits paid by the Pennsylvania insurer in this case served the same purpose and arise from the same accident, the private insurance coverage was not a state mandated government benefit and, therefore, were not subject to a setoff under §3109.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of plaintiff’s attorney fee, holding that the circuit court's finding was not clearly erroneous. However, the Court of Appeals found that the lower court erred by denying plaintiff interest under §3142 of the no-fault act and under the Revised Judicature Act.
