Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 102115; Published
Judges Gribbs, Beasley, and Drain; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 171 Mich App 46; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Medical Insurance [§3109a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Drain, the Court of Appeals determined whether a "full benefits" non-coordinated no-fault policy of the same priority as a coordinated benefits no-fault policy constituted "other health and accident coverages" within the meaning of §3109a.
In a case of first impression, the Court of Appeals held that a no-fault policy with a coordination of benefits provision is "excess coverage" over equal priority no-fault coverage without such a clause. Therefore, rather than equally-sharing liability for no-fault benefits to the injured party pursuant to §3115(2), as between a coordinated and an uncoordinated policy of equal priority, the uncoordinated policy pays all benefits and the coordinated policy pays none.
In this case, the injured party was driving a truck belonging to her father and which was covered under a coordinated policy. The injured party was also covered under a no-fault policy issued to her estranged husband which did not have a coordination of benefits clause. Under the provisions of §3114(1), these two policies were of equal priority, and were held by the trial court to be governed by the provisions of §3115(2) which states that where two or more insurers are in the same order of priority to provide benefits, they equally share liability for these benefits.
Construing the language of §3109a, the Court of Appeals held that in numerous other decisions, the courts have expanded the scope of coverages included within the meaning of "other health and accidental coverage" suspect to §3109a coordination of benefits. Quoting from LeBlanc v State Farm Mutual, 410 Mich 173 (1981), the Court held that the legislative intent behind §3109a was to eliminate overlapping coverages and to reduce the cost of no-fault coverage. According to the Court of Appeals in this case, logic dictates that the coordination of benefits provision in one of the policies of equal priority should be given effect.
