United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan; Docket No. 02-40253; Written
Honorable Paul V. Gadola;
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA – 29 USC Section 1001, Et Seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this written opinion, Judge Gadola held that when a traditional insurance policy and a qualified ERISA plan contained conflicting coordination of benefits clauses, the terms of the ERISA plan, including its coordination of benefits clause, must be given full effect.
In reaching his decision, Judge Gadola rejected the argument of Allstate that a “choice of law provision” in the ERISA plan documents constituted a waiver of ERISA preemption and required that the coordination of benefits clause be resolved under Michigan law rather than federal law.
Judge Gadola held that parties may not contract to choose state law as the governing law of an ERISA-governed benefit plan. Prudential Insurance Company of America v Doe, 140 F 3rd 785, 791 (8th Cir, 1998). A choice of law provision cannot be used to contract around or out of federal law. The broad preemptive effect of ERISA requires such a result.
