Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 500 / Act 218 of 1956
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.5805 (2026)

Merger of nonprofit health care corporation with nonprofit mutual disability insurer.

✓ 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


500.5805 Merger of nonprofit health care corporation with nonprofit mutual disability insurer.

Sec. 5805.

    (1) As set forth in section 220 of the nonprofit health care corporation reform act, 1980 PA 350, MCL 550.1220, a nonprofit health care corporation may merge with a nonprofit mutual disability insurer where the surviving entity is governed by this chapter. A merger described in this section is exempt from the application of sections 1311 to 1319. Notwithstanding any provision of this act to the contrary, the resulting nonprofit mutual disability insurer shall continue as a nonprofit entity and shall continue to provide coverage to the individual and small group health markets in this state.

    (2) A nonprofit mutual disability insurer that has merged with a nonprofit health care corporation as described in subsection (1) may, at its option, continue to offer any product that was offered to the subscribers of the nonprofit health care corporation.

    (3) A nonprofit mutual disability insurer that has merged with a nonprofit health care corporation as described in subsection (1) may offer supplemental coverage to medicare enrollees as provided in chapter 38. Notwithstanding any other provision of this act to the contrary and until July 31, 2016, both of the following apply to an insurer described in this subsection:

    (a) The insurer shall continue to offer to current or new eligible policyholders who are residents of this state, at the same rates as offered to subscribers by the nonprofit health care corporation on the effective date of this section, the supplemental coverage to medicare enrollees.

    (b) The insurer offering supplemental coverage under subdivision (a) shall continue all cost transfers as authorized under section 609(5) of the nonprofit health care corporation reform act, 1980 PA 350, MCL 550.1609, on the effective date of this section.

    (4) Benefits paid by a nonprofit mutual disability insurer that has merged with a nonprofit health care corporation as described in subsection (1) to an insured or provider by way of a check or other similar written instrument for the transmission or payment of money, that is not cashed within the period prescribed in the uniform unclaimed property act, 1995 PA 29, MCL 567.221 to 567.265, shall escheat to this state pursuant to the uniform unclaimed property act, 1995 PA 29, MCL 567.221 to 567.265.

History: Add. 2013, Act 5, Imd. Eff. Mar. 18, 2013

PopularName Notes:

Act 218
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “] Assuming for the sake of analysis that plaintiffs have properly pleaded, and the circumstances support, a claim for either trespass or nuisance, plaintiffs still seek to recover money damages for injury to property.”
Allstate Ins. v. Faulhaber, 403 N.W.2d 527 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “The trial court ruled that the general three-year limitation period found in MCL 500.5805(8); MSA 27A.5805(8) applied and granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.”
Shaw Inv. Co. v. Rollert, 407 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “The alleged negligent act of Rollert occurred on October 22, 1979, the date he drafted the promissory note.”
Bownes v. Borroughs Corp. (W.D. Mich. 2021). · cites it 4× “1991) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.5805 (8), which is now at Mich.”
Crawford v. Ostrowski, 390 N.W.2d 661 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “See MCL 500.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4). The instant dispute, however, centers on the question whether the saving provision contained in MCL 500.”
Richard Howard v. Glenn Haven Shores Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “in 1997 or 2001 when the new spillway was constructed or the culvert was capped—more than three years’ prior to the lawsuit.”
Richard Kovacs v. Jeffrey Robbins (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “-4- As a result, we hold that plaintiff’s claim was time-barred by MCL 500.5805(6) and was not saved by the discovery exception in MCL 600.”
Richard Kovacs v. Jeffrey Robbins (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “-4- As a result, we hold that plaintiff’s claim was time-barred by MCL 500.5805(6) and was not saved by the discovery exception in MCL 600.”
Nancy Gucwa v. Accident Fund Ins. Co. of Am. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021). “Section 5805 does not say that a claim outside this three-year period can be revived if it is somehow “sufficiently related” to injuries occurring within the limitations period. Rather, the statute simply states that a plaintiff “shall not” bring a claim for injuries outside the…”
Melburn K Carpenter v. Cedar Springs Mobile Home estates/slp Sales (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Carpenter’s claim accrued, at the latest, in April 2013. He commenced this action on October 31, 2022, which is after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations and thus his claim under the anti-lockout statute is barred.”
P E K Investments LLC v. Randy D Brandenburg (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “5805(10), which prescribes a three-year limitations period for actions to recover damages for injury to property.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.5805(1) — 1 case
Shaw Inv. Co. v. Rollert, 407 N.W.2d 40 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “The alleged negligent act of Rollert occurred on October 22, 1979, the date he drafted the promissory note.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.5805(10) — 2 cases
Terlecki v. Stewart, 754 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “] Assuming for the sake of analysis that plaintiffs have properly pleaded, and the circumstances support, a claim for either trespass or nuisance, plaintiffs still seek to recover money damages for injury to property.”
Richard Howard v. Glenn Haven Shores Ass'n (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). “in 1997 or 2001 when the new spillway was constructed or the culvert was capped—more than three years’ prior to the lawsuit.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.5805(2) — 1 case
Melburn K Carpenter v. Cedar Springs Mobile Home estates/slp Sales (Mich. Ct. App. 2023). “Carpenter’s claim accrued, at the latest, in April 2013. He commenced this action on October 31, 2022, which is after the expiration of the one-year statute of limitations and thus his claim under the anti-lockout statute is barred.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.5805(4) — 1 case
Crawford v. Ostrowski, 390 N.W.2d 661 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986). “See MCL 500.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4). The instant dispute, however, centers on the question whether the saving provision contained in MCL 500.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.5805(6) — 2 cases
Richard Kovacs v. Jeffrey Robbins (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “-4- As a result, we hold that plaintiff’s claim was time-barred by MCL 500.5805(6) and was not saved by the discovery exception in MCL 600.”
Richard Kovacs v. Jeffrey Robbins (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “-4- As a result, we hold that plaintiff’s claim was time-barred by MCL 500.5805(6) and was not saved by the discovery exception in MCL 600.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.5805(8) — 1 case
Allstate Ins. v. Faulhaber, 403 N.W.2d 527 (Mich. Ct. App. 1987). “The trial court ruled that the general three-year limitation period found in MCL 500.5805(8); MSA 27A.5805(8) applied and granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.”
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.