Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3109a (2026)

Offering deductibles and exclusions reasonably related to other health and accident coverage; exclusion for qualified health coverage; reduced premium rates; applicability of exclusion; termination of qualified health coverage; refusal to insure for failure to obtain certain security prohibited; amount of premium reduction.

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956

Act 218 of 1956

500.3109a Offering deductibles and exclusions reasonably related to other health and accident coverage; exclusion for qualified health coverage; reduced premium rates; applicability of exclusion; termination of qualified health coverage; refusal to insure for failure to obtain certain security prohibited; amount of premium reduction.

Sec. 3109a.

(1) An insurer that provides personal protection insurance benefits under this chapter may offer deductibles and exclusions reasonably related to other health and accident coverage on the insured. Any deductibles and exclusions offered under this section must be offered at a reduced premium that reflects reasonably anticipated reductions in losses, expenses, or both, are subject to prior approval by the director, and must 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.

(2) For an insurance policy issued or renewed after July 1, 2020, the insurer shall offer to an applicant or named insured that selects a personal protection benefit limit under section 3107c(1)(b) an exclusion related to qualified health coverage. All of the following apply to that exclusion:

(a) If the named insured has qualified health coverage as defined in section 3107d(7)(b)(i) that will cover injuries that occur as the result of a motor vehicle accident and if the named insured's spouse and any relatives of either the named insured or the spouse domiciled in the same household have qualified health coverage that will cover injuries that occur as the result of a motor vehicle accident, the premium for the personal protection insurance benefits payable under section 3107(1)(a) under the policy must be reduced by 100%.

(b) If a member, but not all members, of the household covered by the insurance policy has qualified health coverage that will cover injuries that occur as the result of a motor vehicle accident, the insurer shall offer a reduced premium that reflects reasonably anticipated reductions in losses, expenses, or both. The reduction must be in addition to the rate rollback required by section 2111f and the share of the premium reduction for the policy attributable to any person with qualified health coverage must be 100%.

(c) Subject to subdivision (d), a person subject to an exclusion under this subsection is not eligible for personal protection benefits under the insurance policy.

(d) If a person subject to an exclusion under this subsection is no longer covered by the qualified health coverage, the named insured shall notify the insurer that the named insured or resident relative is no longer eligible for an exclusion. All of the following apply under this subdivision:

(i) The named insured shall, within 30 days after the effective date of the termination of the qualified health coverage, obtain insurance that provides the security required under section 3101(1) that includes coverage that was excluded under this subsection.

(ii) During the period described in subparagraph (i), if any person excluded suffers accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident, the person is entitled to claim benefits under the assigned claims plan.

(e) If the named insured does not obtain insurance that provides the security required under section 3101(1) that includes the coverage excluded under this subsection during the period described in subdivision (d)(i) and the named insured or any person excluded under the policy suffers accidental bodily injury arising from a motor vehicle accident, unless the injured person is entitled to coverage under some other policy, the injured person is not entitled to be paid personal protection insurance benefits under section 3107(1)(a) for the injury that occurred during the period in which coverage under this section was excluded.

(3) An automobile insurer shall not refuse to prospectively insure, limit coverage available to, charge a reinstatement fee for, or increase the premiums for automobile insurance for an eligible person, as that term is defined in section 2103, solely because the person previously failed to obtain insurance that provides the security required under section 3101(1) in the time period provided under subsection (2)(d)(i).

(4) The amount of a premium reduction under subsection (1) must appear in a conspicuous manner in the declarations for the policy, and be expressed as a dollar amount or a percentage.

(5) As used in this section, "qualified health coverage" means that term as defined in section 3107d.

History: Add. 1974, Act 72, Eff. June 4, 1974 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 454, Imd. Eff. Dec. 27, 2012 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 22, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019

Constitutionality Notes:

In O'Donnel v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, 404 Mich 524; 273 NW2d 829 (1979), the Michigan supreme court declared this statute constitutional.

Compiler's Notes:

Act 143 of 1993, which amended this section, was submitted to the people by referendum petition (as Proposal C) and rejected by a majority of the votes cast at the November 8, 1994, general election.

PopularName Notes:

Act 218

PopularName Notes:

Essential Insurance

PopularName Notes:

No-Fault Insurance

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 146 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1977–2026 · leading case: Jarrad v. Integon Nat'l Ins., 696 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. 2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Jarrad v. Integon Nat'l Ins., 696 N.W.2d 621 (Mich. 2005). · cites it 28× “We hold that a self-funded long-term disability plan constitutes "other health and accident coverage" that is subject to coordination under MCL 500.3109a. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the matter to the trial court for entry of an order…”

O'Donnell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 273 N.W.2d 829 (Mich. 1979). · cites it 10× “This finding of unconstitutionally disparate classification is further emphasized when one notes that 3109a, MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1), provides for an optional set-off of private, collateral insurance benefits at the election of the insured, *577 while 3109(1) mandates…”

LeBlanc v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins., 301 N.W.2d 775 (Mich. 1981). · cites it 12× “[3] MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1). [4] 87 Mich App 555 ; 274 NW2d 69 (1978).”

Auto Club Ins. v. Frederick & Herrud, Inc., 505 N.W.2d 820 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 14× “The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court’s summary judgment order concluding that the legislative intent behind MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1) required that a no-fault insurer provide only secondary coverage in cases involving competing cob clauses.”

Smith v. Physicians Health Plan, Inc, 514 N.W.2d 150 (Mich. 1994). · cites it 14× “13109(1) [1] requires health insurers whose policies contain coordination of benefits clauses to reimburse an insured for medical expenses paid by an automobile no-fault insurer under a policy in which the insured elected uncoordinated medical coverage.”

Tebo v. Havlik, 343 N.W.2d 181 (Mich. 1984). · cites it 6× “The no-fault insurer of the Tebo automobile was required by the no-fault act to reimburse them for medical expense without regard to whatever benefits were paid or payable to the Tebos by Blue Cross-Blue Shield.”

Spectrum Health Hospitals v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins Co of Michigan, 492 Mich. 503 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 4× “This Court has previously expressed disapproval of relying on model acts to interpret existing statutes rather than on the clear language of the actual statutes at issue. In Jarrad v Integon National Insurance Co,78 we overruled the Court of Appeals’ decision in Spencer v…”

Dep't of Soc. Servs. v. Am. Com. Liab. Ins., 460 N.W.2d 194 (Mich. 1990). · cites it 8× “MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1), MCL [500.”

Profit v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 506 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 1993). · cites it 8× “" MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1). Under 3109a, an insured may opt to coordinate insurance coverage, making the health and accident insurer primarily liable for medical coverage in the event of an automobile accident.”

Primax Recoveries v. State Farm Mut., 147 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Mich. 2001). · cites it 13× “3109a states as follows: An insurer providing personal protection insurance benefits shall offer, at appropriately reduced premium rates, deductibles and exclusions reasonably related to other health and accident coverage on the insured. The deductibles and exclusions required…”

Auto Club Ins. v. Pipeline Indus. Benefit Fund, 654 F. Supp. 188 (E.D. Mich. 1985). · cites it 33× “3109a has not been denominated as a benefit-plan law, Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. 500.3109a; see also Metropolitan Life Ins.”

Ali Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 919 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. 2018). “3 The coordination-of-benefits provision, MCL 500.3109a, proves again the point: an insurer who provides PIP benefits "may offer, at appropriately reduced premium rates, deductibles and exclusions reasonably related to other health and accident coverage on the insured.”

Show all 146 citing cases →

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3109a(1) — 13 cases

Neal J Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Meemic Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Walter Love v. Lashawn Rudolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Shakhary Lofton v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).

Michigan Radiology Inst., PLLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3109a(2) — 11 cases

Walter Love v. Lashawn Rudolph (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Neal J Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

Meemic Ins. Co. v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

David Wells Jr v. Citizens Ins. Co. of the Midwest (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Tiffany Carroll v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3109a(2)(a) — 3 cases

M1 Transp. LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

David Wells Jr v. Citizens Ins. Co. of the Midwest (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Neal J Campbell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3109a(2)(d)(i) — 1 case

M1 Transp. LLC v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3109a(3) — 1 case

Profit v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 506 N.W.2d 514 (Mich. 1993). “" MCL 500.3109a; MSA 24.13109(1). Under 3109a, an insured may opt to coordinate insurance coverage, making the health and accident insurer primarily liable for medical coverage in the event of an automobile accident.”

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3109a(d)(i) — 1 case

Tiffany Carroll v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3109a(d)(ii) — 1 case

Tiffany Carroll v. Progressive Michigan Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.