Opinion ID: 1123028
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Decisions Construing Genuinely Unambiguous Subrogation of Reimbursement Provisions

Text: We have found only a few cases involving what to our minds were genuinely unambiguous reimbursement provisions. For example, in Hershey v. Physicians Health Plan, 498 N.W.2d 519, 520 (Minn.App.1993) the court enforced a plan provision, which said that the plan will be reimbursed from any other existing claims including any claim by you for general damages.... [The plan] may collect... regardless of whether you have been fully compensated.  [Emphasis added.] In Ryan v. Federal Express Corporation, 78 F.3d 123 (3d Cir.1996) the court enforced as unambiguous a plan that provided, it shall be reimbursed ... 100% of the amount of covered benefits paid, and If you receive any payments from the third party, the Company expects 100% reimbursement for any plan benefits paid. See also Riley v. Herbes, 524 N.W.2d 523 (Minn.App.1994), where the court enforced a plan subrogation provision providing that the plan shall be paid ... before the payment of any recovery due from that party to the participant.