Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 87545; Published
Judges Sullivan, Shepherd, and Shuster; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 157 Mich App 351; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Standards for Deductibility of State and Federal Governmental Benefits [§3109(1)]
State Workers Compensation Benefits [§3109(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Shepherd, the Court of Appeals ruled that a no-fault insurance company that paid no-fault benefits to its insured as a result of an automobile accident, is entitled to participate in a workers' compensation proceeding pending between its insured and the employer wherein the injured is attempting to recover workers' compensation benefits arising out of the same automobile accident. The Court held that the no-fault insurance company has a direct interest in the outcome of the workers' compensation proceeding for the reason that it would be entitled to reimbursement from the workers' compensation carrier for any no-fault benefits it paid under §3109(1) of the statute. The Court stated, "under the No-Fault Act, §3109(1), Royal [the no-fault insurer] would be entitled to reimbursement from any workers' compensation benefits paid to Colbeck's personal representative. In fact, a third-party insurance carrier such as Royal may be entitled to direct reimbursement for medical expenses, rather than reimbursement through the claimant
Royal, therefore, has a direct financial interest in the outcome of the workers' compensation proceeding because it has already paid substantial no-fault benefits to Colbeck's personal representative. We disagree. . . that Royal will be protected by the reasonable efforts of Colbeck's personal representative to obtain workers' compensation benefits. Given that the dependents of the deceased will receive benefits through the no-fault system or a combination of that system and the workers' compensation system, it is questionable whether the personal representative's efforts can protect a no-fault insurers rights in regard to a setoff of workers' compensation benefits."
