Court Opinion

ID: 9692606
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:58:40.523045+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:35.648426
License: Public Domain

McDonald, J.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant The Guardian Life Insurance Company pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10), no genuine issue of material fact. We affirm.
On December 27, 1985, plaintiff was injured when the automobile in which she was a passenger was involved in an accident. Plaintiff’s medical expenses were reimbursed by her parents’ no-fault noncoordinated benefits insurance policies provided by defendants Auto-Owners Insurance Company and Farm Bureau General Insurance Company of Michigan.
At the time of the accident plaintiff was covered through her employer by a group health insurance policy issued by defendant Guardian Life. Plaintiff *56also applied to Guardian Life for reimbursement of medical expenses under this group policy. Guardian Life rejected plaintiffs claim arguing the group policy’s coordination-of-benefits clause barred plaintiffs claim.
Following Guardian Life’s rejection of plaintiffs claim, plaintiff filed the instant action for benefits under the group policy. Thereafter, Guardian Life filed a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(0(10) claiming no genuine issue of material fact existed as plaintiff was primarily covered under another insurance policy which already reimbursed plaintiff for her medical costs. The trial court found defendant Guardian secondarily liable to the no-fault policies and granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.
On appeal plaintiff claims the trial court erred in failing to find Guardian Life liable for loss despite the policy’s inclusion of a coordination clause. Plaintiff argues that giving effect to the health insurer’s coordination clause contravenes § 3109a of the no-fault insurance act which provides;
An insurer providing personal protection insurance benefits shall offer, at appropriately reduced premium rates, deductibles and exclusions reason¿bly related to other health and accident coverage on the insured. The deductibles and exclusions required to be offered by this section shall be subject to prior approval by the commissioner and shall apply only to benefits payable to the person named in the policy, the spouse of the insured and any relative of either domiciled in the same household. [MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1)]
Plaintiff relies on our Supreme Court’s decision in Federal Kemper Ins Co, Inc v Health Ins Administration, Inc, 424 Mich 537; 383 NW2d 590 (1986), to support this claim.
*57In Federal Kemper, the Court found that this provision (§ 3109a), and the legislative intent behind it, preclude giving effect to a coordination clause in health insurance when the insured’s no-fault medical benefits are coordinated. The Court found § 3109a to have dual purposes: the elimination of duplicative recovery and the containment or reduction of insurance costs.
To effectuate these purposes, the Court in Federal Kemper chose to give a no-fault coordination clause priority over a similar clause in the insured’s health insurance policy. However, the Court expressly limited its decision to situations where an insured has opted for coordinated no-fault benefits. Such is not the situation in the instant case. Here, the insured has noncoordinated no-fault insurance and coordinated health insurance. Nonetheless, plaintiff contends the legislative goal of providing persons insured under no-fault the ability to reduce their premiums by obtaining less coverage via coordination prohibits a health insurer from making its insurance secondary to noncoordinated no-fault benefits. We disagree.
Although we agree to some degree that allowing coordination in circumstances similar to those presented here would limit a no-fault insured’s choice under § 3109a, we believe the major purposes of the statute are advanced by the trial court’s treatment of the issue. Presumably, plaintiff’s employer pays smaller premiums, thus keeping the cost of insurance contained, and duplicative recovery is eliminated.
Additionally, a recent decision of this Court upholds a lower court’s grant of summary disposition under circumstances similar to those presented here. In Estabrook v Lincoln National Life Ins Co, 172 Mich App 450; 432 NW2d 733 (1988), a plaintiff who had noncoordinated no-fault insur*58anee and coordinated group disability insurance was injured in a motorcycle accident. The trial court granted summary disposition to plaintiffs disability insurer finding its coordination provision effective. In so holding, the court relied on MCL 550.3610a; MSA 24.13610(1), which specifically authorizes a group disability insurance policy to provide for the coordination of benefits with benefits payable for the same loss under automotive medical payments insurance. Thus, plaintiffs assertion that the Legislature intended no infringement on an insured’s choice of coordinated or uncoordinated no-fault insurance must be rejected.
Affirmed.
Weaver, J., concurred.