Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 116942; Unpublished
Judges Brennan, Maher, and Neff; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Medical Insurance [§3109a]
Duplicate Recovery [§3109a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court decision holding that plaintiff was not entitled to recover medical expense benefits from his health insurer, where the no-fault insurance policy was an uncoordinated policy, and the health insurance was a coordinated policy.
Plaintiff was injured while operating a vehicle owned by his father. He was covered under his father's no-fault automobile insurance policy, which was an uncoordinated policy. He received his medical coverage under the terms of the no-fault policy, but also sought recovery of his medical expenses from a group health care plan under which he was covered. The health care plan denied coverage on the basis of its coordination of benefits clause which provided that benefits shall not be available under the contract until the benefits of any other "group health plan or insurance policy are exhausted."
In upholding the validity of the group health plan's coordination of benefits clause, the Court of Appeals held that it was clearly applicable to any other group health benefit plan or insurance policy, including automobile insurance. The court rejected the plaintiff’s contention that the coordination of benefits clause applied only to other group health insurance coverage. The court also distinguished the case of Haefele v Meijer. Inc, 165 Mich App 485 (1987) (Item No. 1094), on the basis that the Haefele case, supra, involved a coordination of benefits clause which was materially different from the clause in the Healthplus policy, and was clearly limited to other group health plans only.
