Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 72214; Published
Judges Allen, R.B.I. Burns, and Maher; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 139 Mich App 306; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Medical Insurance [§3109a]
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Disability Insurance [§3109a]
Duplicate Recovery [§3109a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Allen, the Court of Appeals construed the language of a coordinated benefits endorsement in plaintiff’s no-fault policy to effectively prohibit duplication of recovery from the no-fault carrier and a health insurance carrier. The language in the no-fault policy which was the subject of judicial interpretation in this case provided, "this insurance does not apply to the extent that any amounts are paid or payable for allowable expenses and for work loss to or on behalf of such named insured or relative under the provisions of any other insurance, service, benefit or reimbursement plan providing similar direct benefits, without regard to fault, for bodily injury sustained as a result of the operation, maintenance or use, including the loading or unloading of a motor vehicle." Plaintiff argued that this language referred only to other no-fault policies. Defendant argued that the phrase "any other insurance" applies to all other types of health and accident coverage other than no-fault.
The Court agreed that the language was ambiguous. However, the Court felt that the defendant's interpretation was more persuasive. In this regard, the Court stated that the situation addressed by plaintiff’s argument (nonduplication of benefits between several no-fault automobile policies) was specifically addressed in §3115(3) of the statute and was also specifically covered in another section of the auto policy entitled "multiple policies." Furthermore, given the legislative history surrounding the enactment of the coordinated benefit provisions of §3109a, it was clear that such "coordination clauses" in automobile insurance policies were intended to prevent duplication of recovery between no-fault policies and health insurance policies. Therefore, the language utilized in defendant's policy was effective in preventing duplicative recovery with health policies.
