Michigan Supreme Court; Docket No. 62932; Published
Opinion by______; Per Curiam; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 415 Mich 303; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Health Insurance Liens Regarding Auto Tort Claims [§3116]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion issued in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals in item number 169. The Supreme Court held that public policy does not prevent a group health insurer from enforcing a contractual "subrogation" clause and obtaining reimbursement for medical expenses it paid on behalf of an automobile accident victim from that victim's subsequent noneconomic loss tort recovery. In reversing the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stated, "To be sure, as the Court of Appeals noted, the contract provision in this case goes beyond 'traditional subrogation'. The recovery from the third party out of which the plaintiff seeks reimbursement was not for medical expenses, but rather for noneconomic loss. However, the subrogation clause speaks generally of 'a right to recover damages from any person or organization.' We do not find the mere use of the term 'subrogated' to create an inconsistency that defeats the clear intent of the provision. The language of the contract clearly defines the right of the insurer to seek such reimbursement"
The Court distinguished this case from others such as Great American Insurance Company v Queen, Supreme Court item number 376, which rejected claims of insurers for reimbursement out of noneconomic tort recoveries, on the basis mat those cases presented "questions of statutory construction" rather than matters of contractual interpretation. The Court held that "public policy does not bar an insurer from reducing its costs by requiring an insured to reimburse it, from the proceeds of a tort recovery, for payments by the insurer with respect to the accident which gave rise to that recovery."
