Legal Opinion · Dissent

Jarrad v. Integon National Insurance

Michigan Supreme Court

Decided May 3, 2005No. Docket 126176Published

1DissentCavanagh, J.

In this no-fault case, I would conclude that the long-term disability (LTD) plan covering plaintiff does not constitute “other health and accident coverage” subject to coordination under MCL 500.3109a. I am not convinced that the dichotomy set *225forth by Spencer v Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co, 179 Mich App 389; 445 NW2d 520 (1989), and Rettig v Hastings Mut Ins Co, 196 Mich App 329; 492 NW2d 526 (1992), is inconsistent with the Legislature’s intent. Moreover, I would not decide this jurisprudentially significant issue without the benefit of full briefing and oral argument. Accordingly, I…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Marquis v. Hartford Accident & IndemnityMichigan Supreme Court · 1994
  2. Donajkowski v. Alpena Power Co.Michigan Supreme Court · 1999
  3. LeBlanc v. State Farm Mutual Automobile InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1981
  4. Citizens Insurance Co. of America v. TuttleMichigan Supreme Court · 1981
  5. MacDonald v. State Farm Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1984

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API