Case Name: BAGLEY v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1980-08-22
Citations: 101 Mich. App. 733
Docket Number: Docket No. 46760
Parties: BAGLEY v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Judges: Before: N. J. Kaufman, P.J., and Cynar and J. E. Townsend, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 101
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
BAGLEY v STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY
Docket No. 46760.
Submitted June 16, 1980, at Detroit.
Decided August 22, 1980.
Harry L. Bagley, a member of the United States Army stationed in Michigan, was injured in an automobile accident. Bagley was insured under a no-fault insurance policy issued by State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company. Medical treatment and hospitalization for the injuries arising out of the automobile accident were provided by the Army and his salary continued to be provided by the Army until Bagley was given a disability discharge. Thereafter his treatment and hospitalization was provided by the Veteran’s Administration, and he has been receiving from the Veteran’s Administration full service-connected disability benefits. Bagley sought personal protection benefits, under the no-fault insurance policy from State Farm. State Farm denied payment of benefits under the insurance policy on the basis that the Federal government benefits, which exceeded its liability under the insurance policy, could be subtracted from its liability. Bagley brought an action for declaratory judgment. State Farm moved for summary judgment. The Macomb Circuit Court, Edward J. Gallagher, J., granted the motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff appeals. Held:
The Legislature clearly intended that the provision in the no-fault insurance act which reduces the benefits payable under that act by the amount of benefits received from the government because of the accident giving rise to the no-fault claim should apply to the medical and disability payments received from the Army and Veteran’s Administration. Defendant insurance company, accordingly, properly subtracted those benefits in determining its liability for personal protection benefits under the no-fault insurance policy that it issued.
Affirmed.
Reference for Points in Headnote
7 Am Jur 2d (Rev), Automobile Insurance § 291.
Insurance — No-Fault Insurance — Automobiles — Reduction of Benefits — Veterans Benefits.
The Legislature clearly intended that the provision of the no-fault insurance act which reduces the benefits payable pursuant to that act to the extent of government benefits received because of an automobile accident should apply to Army and Veterans’ Administration benefits received as a result of the automobile accident giving rise to the no-fault insurance claim (MCL 500.3109[1]; MSA 24.13109[1]).
Rock, Roberge, Hennings & Coburn, for plaintiff.
Eggenberger, Eggenberger, McKinney & Weber, P.C., for defendant.
Before: N. J. Kaufman, P.J., and Cynar and J. E. Townsend, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiff appeals from a circuit court opinion of July 10, 1979, and order of August 2, 1979, which granted summary judgment in favor of defendant in plaintiff's declaratory judgment action. The issue raised on appeal was whether the Legislature intended that § 3109(1) of the Michigan no-fault insurance act, MCL 500.3109(1); MSA 24.13109(1), apply to medical and disability benefits which the plaintiff received from the Army and Veterans' Administration as a result of the automobile accident. We find that the Legislature clearly intended the section to apply to such benefits. O'Donnell v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 404 Mich 524; 273 NW2d 829 (1979), Beaver v Auto-Owners Ins Co, Inc, 93 Mich App 399; 286 NW2d 884 (1979).
Affirmed.