Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77433; Published
Judges Gribbs, MacKenzie, and Gage; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 141 Mich App 762; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Workers Comp Liens Regarding Auto Tort Claims [§3116]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous Opinion by Judge Gribbs also deals with the issue of a workers' compensation carrier's right to reimbursement from an auto accident victim's subsequent tort recovery. In this case, plaintiff was injured when the automobile he was working on in the course of his employment jumped from park gear to reverse gear. Plaintiff filed a products liability action against Ford Motor Company which was subsequently settled Liberty Mutual was plaintiff’s workers' compensation carrier, as well as his no-fault benefits insurer. Liberty paid plaintiff workers' comp benefits which admittedly did not exceed in amount or duration the benefits that plaintiff would have received under the no-fault statute. Nevertheless, Liberty claimed reimbursement rights under the workers' comp act out of plaintiff s subsequent products liability settlement The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's order denying Liberty Mutual any lien rights.
The basis of the court's opinion was the Supreme Court's previous decision in Great American v Queen (Item No. 376). The Queen case makes it clear that in a no-fault situation, a workers' comp carrier has lien rights which are co-extensive with a no-fault insurer's right to reimbursement under §3116. In this case, had Liberty Mutual paid benefits as a no-fault insurer, it would not have been entitled to any reimbursement under §3116 out of plaintiff’s products liability settlement even though that settlement would have resulted in some duplicative recovery. This is the case because §3116 only provides for reimbursement to the PIP carrier in three limited situations, none of which apply to a products liability case. Therefore, Liberty Mutual, as a workers' comp insurer, is not entitled to any greater reimbursement rights than it would have as a no-fault insurer. To hold to the contrary would result in a smaller recovery for those injured in the course of their employment as opposed to those who are injured in the same type of accidents which occur outside the scope of employment.
