Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 109886; Unpublished
Judges Sullivan, Doctoroff, and Reilly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Coordination with Other Health and Accident Medical Insurance [§3109a]
Duplicate Recovery [§3109a]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed denial of plaintiff’s claim that her health insurance carrier was obligated to pay her medical expenses where plaintiff had a non-coordinated no-fault policy and a coordinated health insurance policy.
Plaintiff’s health insurance policy contained a variable deductible provision excluding benefits for medical expenses when they are covered under a no-fault insurance policy. Plaintiff was also insured under a non-coordinated no-fault insurance policy. Plaintiff’s no-fault insurer paid all plaintiffs medical expenses arising out of the accident. Her health insurer denied her claim for the same benefits based upon its coordination of benefits clause.
The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiffs argument on appeal that enforcing the coordination of benefits clause in the health insurance policy violated the provisions of §3109a of the No-Fault Insurance Act The Supreme Court decision in Federal Kemper was expressly limited to a situation in which the insured had a coordinated no-fault benefits clause which conflicted with a health insurance coordinated benefits clause.
Here, plaintiff opted for non-coordinated no-fault benefits. Giving effect to the health insurance coordination provision in such a situation would further the purpose of §3109a to reduce health care costs and to avoid duplicative recovery. The court noted the same result had recently been reached in the case of Gibbard v Auto Owners Insurance Company, 179 Mich App 54 (1989).
