Preview:

Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Opinion
UNITED STATES FIDELITY INSURANCE & GUARANTY COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellee, v MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant, and MICHAEL MIGDAL, Individually and as Conservator for the Estate of DANIEL MIGDAL, a Protected Person, Defendant.

Chief Justice:

Justices:

Marilyn Kelly

Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman Diane M. Hathaway

JULY 21, 2009

No. 133466

HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE MIDWEST, Plaintiff-Appellee, v MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS ASSOCIATION, Defendant-Appellant. No. 133468

BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH 1

WEAVER, J. This Court originally granted leave to appeal to consider whether MCL 500.3104(2) obligates the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association (MCCA) to reimburse a member insurer for personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits paid to a claimant without regard to the reasonableness of the member insurer's payments of PIP benefits. This Court issued an opinion reversing the Court of Appeals and remanding for further proceedings, while holding that "when a member insurer's policy only provides coverage for `reasonable charges,' the MCCA has authority to refuse to indemnify unreasonable charges."1 Subsequently, plaintiffs United States Fidelity Insurance & Guaranty Company and Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest filed motions for rehearing. We granted the plaintiffs' motions for rehearing, and these cases were resubmitted for decision without further briefing or oral argument.2 We now hold that the indemnification obligation set forth in MCL 500.3104(2) does not incorporate the reasonableness standard that MCL 500.3107 requires between claimants and member insurers. Furthermore, the powers

granted to the MCCA in

Download HARTFORD INS CO OF THE MIDWEST V MICH CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS ASSN.pdf

Michigan Law