Opinion ID: 1284735
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: history of claim

Text: Plaintiff's petition for compensation benefits was heard by the referee on February 21, 1972. The referee found as a matter of fact that plaintiff had been injured and was disabled. In addition, the referee found as a matter of law that SISF was liable. SISF appealed to the Michigan Workmen's Compensation Appeal Board (WCAB), which affirmed. SISF thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals and a panel of that Court reversed the WCAB and held that 1971 PA 149 was wholly nonretroactive in application. Plaintiff then appealed to this Court, claiming that subsequent to the Court of Appeals opinion, he had discovered the aggregate excess insurance coverage by CU. He also filed a motion for remand. We granted leave to appeal and remanded to the Workmen's Compensation Bureau to determine whether an insurance company was in existence which was liable for plaintiff's award of compensation. The order provided further that if necessary the cause should be certified to this Court for appropriate proceedings. 391 Mich 823 (1974). The referee found CU to be liable, citing Federoff v Ewing, 386 Mich 474; 192 NW2d 242 (1971). The WCAB modified this finding by holding that CU's liability did not begin until GMP's accrued liability exceeds the reinsured's retention amount. Any sums accruing to plaintiff prior to this [are] subject to the bankruptcy proceedings of [GMP] and/or Supreme Court review of the Court of Appeals holding. Three proposals have been presented by the parties as possible sources of compensation.