Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325424; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Cavanagh, and Shapiro; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Interpretation of Insurance Contracts
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the plain language of a no-fault policy issued by plaintiff did not provide coordinated coverage, and therefore defendant health insurer was not obligated to reimburse plaintiff for the benefits it had paid.
The claimant in this case was injured while operating a snow plow owned by his employer. The snow plow was insured under a no-fault policy issued by plaintiff Michigan Insurance Company. The claimant also had a health insurance policy with defendant Federated Mutual Insurance Company. Michigan Insurance paid the claimant’s medical expenses and then sought reimbursement from Federated Mutual, which refused reimbursement, asserting the no-fault policy did not provide coordinated coverage. Michigan Insurance, however, claimed the policy contained a typographical error, and the clause indicating the policy provided coordinated “personal property protection” benefits should have said “personal injury protection.” The trial court granted summary disposition to Federated Mutual.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding the language of the no-fault policy issued by Michigan Insurance was unambiguous. In this regard, the court said:
“After review of the policy, we conclude that the language of the contract is not ambiguous. Although personal property protection may not be statutorily mandated in Michigan, its existence in the contract does not nullify the policy or necessarily indicate that the parties intended to coordinate another type of benefit. As used in the policy, the phrase ‘personal property protection’ is not susceptible to more than one interpretation. Moreover, there is no conflict between the alleged typographical errors and other provisions of the contract; the omission of a reference to coordination of PIP benefits on the endorsement page of the policy supports this reading of the phrase at issue. Similarly, the language reflecting medical expenses and wage loss under the coordination of personal property protection declaration does not render the contract ambiguous. … The alleged typographical errors and omissions are insufficient to require us to broaden our review past the plain language of the contract. Because the plain language of the insurance policy does not contain a coordination of PIP benefits clause, we conclude that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition ….”
