Opinion ID: 848657
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Rettig v. Hastings Mut. Ins. Co.

Text: In Rettig, supra, the Court of Appeals was again called upon to interpret § 3109a. The plaintiff in Rettig was injured in an automobile accident. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff was insured by the defendant under a no-fault insurance policy that contained a coordinated-benefits provision. The plaintiff also had an LTD plan issued by a different insurance company and made available to the plaintiff by her employer. The LTD plan was paid for by the plaintiff through payroll deductions. Notably, the plaintiff was employed as a supervisor and was not covered under a collective bargaining agreement. The trial court held that the defendant was entitled to a setoff under § 3109a because the plaintiff's LTD plan constituted other health and accident coverage under § 3109a, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Rettig Court, similar to the Spencer Court, observed that [w]hile the scope of coverage included within the meaning of `other health and accident coverage'... has expanded since LeBlanc, it has generally been limited to benefits typically associated with health insurance plans. Rettig, supra at 333, 492 N.W.2d 526. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals concluded that the LTD benefits received by the plaintiff fell within the purview of § 3109a because they constitute protection typically provided by health insurance plans, which include payments for medical expenses resulting from an accident as well as wage-loss replacement benefits. Rettig, supra at 333, 492 N.W.2d 526. Importantly, the Court of Appeals reasoned that its holding did not conflict with Spencer. The panel in Rettig observed that the plaintiff in Spencer received wages directly from his employer pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The Court of Appeals further noted: There, this Court observed that under the Uniform Motor Vehicle Accident Reparations Act, wage continuation benefits pursuant to a union agreement were intended to be coordinated with no-fault benefits, but that the Michigan version of the uniform act contained more restrictive language and limited coordination of benefits to insurance coverage. In contrast to Spencer, the long-term disability benefits in this case were provided to plaintiff by Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company pursuant to an insurance policy, not a collective bargaining agreement. [ Id. ]