Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 71668; Published
Judges Cynar, Kelly, and Evans; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 140 Mich App 692; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Medical Insurance [§3109a]
General / Miscellaneous [§3109a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous Opinion by Judge Kelly, the Court of Appeals, pursuant to a coordinated benefits provision in a fleet lease policy, denied duplicate recovery of PIP benefits to a plaintiff whose employer was the named insured on the fleet policy but where plaintiff was a "named principal driver." The court stated: "We choose to construe §3109a as a bar to duplicate recovery wherever no-fault benefits are payable to a person specifically named in the policy, including the named principal driver. In this case, plaintiff is a named principal driver in the policy. Benefits payable to his wife are thus subject to the coordination of benefits clause and [the wife] is precluded from recovering no-fault benefits under the fleet policy." In essence, the court ruled that the phrase "person named in the policy" as used in §3109a was synonymous with "named principal driver." If §3109a only authorized a coordination of benefits for the "named insured," then the clause involved in this case would never have any application for the reason that the actual "named insured" on this policy was plaintiff’s corporate employer. No-fault benefits would never be payable to a corporate entity. Therefore, the purpose of the coordination of benefits clause would be totally frustrated if coordination were not proper in this case.
