Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 85493; Published
Per Curiam (with Judge Levin Filing a Separate Opinion)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 435 Mich 508; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Medical Insurance [§3109a]
General Rule of Priority [§3114(1)]
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
Equal Priority Situations [§3114(6)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam Opinion signed by five Justices and issued in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court held that where several no-fault insurers are in an equal line of priority, some having coordinated benefits clauses and others being full benefit policies, each insurer must share the cost of paying PIP benefits on a pro rata basis rather than having the non-coordinated policy pay on a primary basis. In expressing this opinion, the Court stated:
"A full benefits no-fault policy having the same statutory priority as a coordinated no-fault policy does not constitute 'other health and accident coverage' within the meaning of [§3109a]. Thus, a no-fault insurer that has issued a coordinated policy may not coordinate benefits so as to place the full obligation to pay on a no-fault insurer that is of equal statutory priority and that has issued a full benefits policy."
The competing insurers in this case insured three different automobiles owned by plaintiff’s aunt with whom he resided at the time of the accident. Plaintiff was not otherwise covered by any other policy; and therefore, the three household insurers were in equal line of priority.
The decision in this case rejects the holding of the Court of Appeals in the similar case of Auto Owners v Farm Bureau (Item No. 1164). The Supreme Court had granted leave to appeal in the Auto Owners decision to examine this very issue. However, while the appeal was pending the case was settled. The case at bar had been held in abeyance pending the decision in Auto Owners. Given the fact that the court would not have the opportunity to address this issue in Auto Owners, it decided to summarily reverse the Court of Appeals and remand the case to circuit court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.
In reaching this conclusion, the Supreme Court referred to its decision in LeBlanc v State Farm (Item No. 377) and stated, "we adhere to our conclusion in LeBlanc that the phrase 'other health and accident coverage' clearly means coverage other than personal protection insurance benefits payable under a no-fault policy."
Justice Levin would have granted leave to appeal, stating that he adhered to the view that preemptory reversal should be reserved for those cases in which the law is settled. Justice Levin stated that because the court granted leave to consider this question in Auto Owners, it should have granted leave to address this same issue in the case at bar.
