HARTFORD INS CO OF THE MIDWEST V MICH CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS ASSN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
UNITED STATES FIDELITY INSURANCE &
GUARANTY COMPANY,
FOR PUBLICATION
February 6, 2007
9:00 a.m.
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 260604
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2003-051485-CK
MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
MICHAEL MIGDAL, Individually and as
Conservator for the Estate of DANIEL MIGDAL, a
Protected Person,
Defendant.
THE HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF
THE MIDWEST,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 271199
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 2006-071933-CK
MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC CLAIMS
ASSOCIATION,
Defendant-Appellee.
Official Reported Version
Before: Owens, P.J., and White and Hoekstra, JJ.
WHITE, J. (concurring).
I concur in the majority's conclusion that the Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association
(MCCA) is required to provide full reimbursement for amounts paid under PIP coverage. While
-1-
in retrospect the settlement in the Migdal case might seem excessive, there is no allegation or
indication that it was entered into in bad faith, or without consideration of the amounts the
United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company might be required to pay if it took the case to trial.
Similarly, there is no indication that Hartford Insurance Company of the Midwest acted in bad
faith in agreeing to pay $30 an hour for attendant care in exchange for a three-year freeze of the
rate. Most important, there is no indication that either insurer actually applies a double standard
in adjusting claims that will ultimately be reimbursed by the MCCA.1
Under the statutory framework, the determination of reasonableness is to be made by the
insurer, or the judicial system after litigation. Whatever payments then result are the amounts
that the insurer is "obligated to pay," and that are "payable," under personal protection insurance
coverage, within the meaning of MCL 500.3104(2) and (25)(c). This is the amount for which the
MCCA must provide, and the insurer must accept, indemnification. The statute does not
contemplate that the MCCA will become a party to the insurance contract, or possible litigation,
between the insured and the insurer, with a voice regarding whether a lesser or greater sum is
reasonable under MCL 500.3107. Nor does it contemplate that the MCCA will act as a de facto
regulatory body, determining what amounts are reasonable for which services.
/s/ Helene N. White
1
As the majority observed, if this were asserted, one would expect the MCAA to exercise its
powers under MCL 500.3104(7)(g).
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
