 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Duckworth v. Continental National Indemnity Co.9/8/2005
FOR PUBLICATION
Before: Saad, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
In this action under Michigan's no-fault insurance act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., plaintiff, Richard Duckworth, appeals an order that granted summary disposition to defendant, Continental National Indemnity Co. (CNI). We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
On May 25, 2001, plaintiff, a Canadian citizen, sustained injuries in Canada in an accident involving a semi-tractor trailer. Plaintiff received medical treatment and the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP), Ontario's public health insurance program, covered his medical expenses. On February 20, 2003, plaintiff filed this action to recover personal protection insurance benefits from CNI, the insurer of the semi-tractor trailer. The uncoordinated insurance policy for the vehicle included Michigan no-fault personal protection insurance coverage and plaintiff acknowledges that CNI paid some benefits under the contract, including those medical expenses that were not covered by OHIP. Here, plaintiff seeks $82,427.38 in reimbursement benefits for his medical care and treatment expenses covered by OHIP.
The trial court ultimately granted partial summary disposition to CNI under MCR 2.116(C)(10). The court concluded that plaintiff did not "incur" the medical expenses under MCL 500.3107(1)(a) because his medical care was free of cost under OHIP, plaintiff was never billed for the medical services, and because, under Canadian Law, plaintiff cannot be held liable for the costs.
II. Analysis
This Court reviews "de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition." Tipton v William Beaumont Hosp, 266 Mich App 27, 32; 697 NW2d 552 (2005). "Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) is appropriate when there is no genuine issue with respect to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Id. This case also presents an issue of statutory interpretation, which this Court also reviews de novo. Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich 192, 196; 694 NW2d 544 (2005).
As noted, the trial court granted summary disposition to defendant because it ruled, as a matter or law, that the medical expenses covered by OHIP were not "incurred" expenses that would entitle plaintiff to PIP benefits under MCL 500.3107. The relevant portion of the statute provides:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), personal protection insurance benefits are payable for the following:
(a) Allowable expenses consisting of all reasonable charges incurred for reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for an injured person's care, recovery, or rehabilitation. [Emphasis added. ]
To support his claim that OHIP-covered expenses are "incurred," plaintiff relies primarily on Clute v General Accident Assurance Co of Canada, 179 Mich App 527; 446 NW2d 839 (1989), the only published Michigan case to address OHIP payments and the no-fault act. However, as plaintiff recognizes, Clute concerned MCL 500.3109(1) of the no-fault act, not § 3107. The Clute Court considered whether a setoff provision in a no-fault policy permitted a setoff of benefits received from a foreign government to PIP benefits that would otherwise be payable. Clute did not address the plaintiff's entitlement to the benefits under §3107(1)(a). Here, defendant does not seek a setoff of benefits paid by OHIP and no policy provision regarding setoff is at issue.
Moreover, the Court's holding in Clute is narrow and cannot be reasonably broadened to cover §3107(1)(a). In denying setoff, the Court in Clute interpreted specific language in §3109(1) that r
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|