section 3109a s enactment in Michigan

2021Tousignant, 444 Mich at 307 , concluded “that the legislative policy that led to the enactment of § 3109a requires an insured who chooses to coordinate no-fault and health coverages to obtain payment and services from the health insurer to the extent of the health coverage available from the health insurer.” (Emphasis added.) The extent of the health coverage available is limited by health maintenance organizations (HMOs), such as BCN. “[T]he HMO generally designates the physicians and facilities where services will be performed,” “limit[ing] choice of physicians or facilities.” Id. at 309.

1992The Court stated: We are also of the view that the Legislature’s enactment of § 3109a, which is narrowly limited to "coverage” and which is not expressly confined to private forms of such "coverage,” evinces an intent to provide unique treatment to health and accident insurance, as opposed to other perhaps equally duplicative "benefits.” [Jd.] See also Federal Kemper Ins Co, Inc v Health Ins Administration, Inc, 424 Mich 537, 551-552 ; 383 NW2d 590 (1986), and John Hancock Property & Casualty Ins Cos v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 437 Mich 368, 377-378 ; 471 NW2d 541 (1991), where the

1992The Court stated: We are also of the view that the Legislature’s enactment of § 3109a, which is narrowly limited to "coverage” and which is not expressly confined to private forms of such "coverage,” evinces an intent to provide unique treatment to health and accident insurance, as opposed to other perhaps equally duplicative "benefits.” [Jd.] See also Federal Kemper Ins Co, Inc v Health Ins Administration, Inc, 424 Mich 537, 551-552 ; 383 NW2d 590 (1986), and John Hancock Property & Casualty Ins Cos v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 437 Mich 368, 377-378 ; 471 NW2d 541 (1991), where the

1992The Court stated: We are also of the view that the Legislature’s enactment of § 3109a, which is narrowly limited to "coverage” and which is not expressly confined to private forms of such "coverage,” evinces an intent to provide unique treatment to health and accident insurance, as opposed to other perhaps equally duplicative "benefits.” [Jd.] See also Federal Kemper Ins Co, Inc v Health Ins Administration, Inc, 424 Mich 537, 551-552 ; 383 NW2d 590 (1986), and John Hancock Property & Casualty Ins Cos v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 437 Mich 368, 377-378 ; 471 NW2d 541 (1991), where the

1992The Court stated: We are also of the view that the Legislature’s enactment of § 3109a, which is narrowly limited to "coverage” and which is not expressly confined to private forms of such "coverage,” evinces an intent to provide unique treatment to health and accident insurance, as opposed to other perhaps equally duplicative "benefits.” [Jd.] See also Federal Kemper Ins Co, Inc v Health Ins Administration, Inc, 424 Mich 537, 551-552 ; 383 NW2d 590 (1986), and John Hancock Property & Casualty Ins Cos v Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan, 437 Mich 368, 377-378 ; 471 NW2d 541 (1991), where the

1989In Orr, supra, cited in LeBlanc , the plaintiff’s insurance policy contained a coordinated benefits clause which provided, in pertinent part, as follows: In consideration of the reduced premium for personal protection insurance, . . . sums paid or payable to the named insured . . . shall be reduced by any amount paid or payable under any valid and collectable . . . employer paid sick pay program. [ 90 Mich App 688 -689.] In line with this provision, the defendant insurance company refused to pay personal protection insurance benefits to plaintiff until he had exhausted his accrued sick leave.

1988In LeBlanc v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 410 Mich 173 ; 301 NW2d 775 (1981), reh den 411 Mich 1119 (1981), our Supreme Court held that the legislative intent behind enactment of § 3109a was an attempt to eliminate the existing *51 problem of overlapping coverages between medical expenses payable under no-fault policies and insurance-type health and accident coverages.

1985In their briefs, the instant parties essentially argued various policy considerations in support of their respective positions, neither party seeking the result obtained in Farm Bureau, supra, and Kemper, supra, which prorated liability based on policy limits.

1985In their briefs, the instant parties essentially argued various policy considerations in support of their respective positions, neither party seeking the result obtained in Farm Bureau, supra, and Kemper, supra, which prorated liability based on policy limits.