Court Opinion

ID: 9670320
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:18:56.096218+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:03.882005
License: Public Domain

Boyle, J.
(concurring). I have signed Chief Justice Brickley’s opinion because I agree with the result and the analysis set forth in parts i, iii, and iv. I do not concur in the analysis in part ii, however, because I do not find MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1) to be relevant in the present case. Section 3109a is expressly limited to coordination of no-fault benefits with other health and accident coverage "payable to the person named in *49the policy, the spouse of the insured and any relative of either domiciled in the same household.” Marisa DeMeglio is neither the insured named in the Auto Club no-fault policy at issue, the spouse of the insured, nor a relative of either of those parties. I thus find the majority’s discussion of the parameters of § 3109a coverage unnecessary.
The medical benefits paid on behalf of Marisa DeMeglio were provided pursuant to Pennsylvania state law and meet the test for benefits articulated in Jarosz v DAIIE, 418 Mich 565, 577; 345 NW2d 563 (1984). Setoff is therefore mandated under MCL 500.3109(1); MSA 24.13109(1). Profit v Citizens Ins Co, 444 Mich 281, 288-300; 506 NW2d 514 (1993) (Boyle, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).