Fifteen years by our count. See Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am. , 576 Fed.Appx. 496 (6th Cir. 2014) ; Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am. , 735 F.3d 349 (6th Cir. 2012) ; Stryker Corp. v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. , 681 F.3d 819 (6th Cir. 2012). That insurance-coverage dispute, in its current incarnation, requires us to interpret the "consent-to-settle" provision of an excess-liability policy.
"The purpose of the statute is to penalize insurers who fail to timely pay benefits." Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., 576 Fed. Appx. 496, 504 (6th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The Sixth Circuit has determined that an award of penalty interest pursuant to MCL 500.2006 applies to untimely benefits and when benefits are not paid at all.
The purpose of M.C.L. § 500.2006 is "to penalize insurers who fail to timely pay benefits." Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., 576 F. App'x 496, 504 (6th Cir. 2014). "It applies when the insurance company is dilatory in making timely payments to the insured."
(Stryker I, Jgmt., ECF No. 1215.) This judgment was affirmed on appeal. Stryker Corp. v. XL Ins. Am., Inc., 576 F. App'x 496 (6th Cir. 2014). Stryker contends that if the amount of XL's overpayment is not added into the principal amount due, TIG would obtain an undeserved windfall.
However, for purposes of this opinion, the issue is limited to whether TIG is liable for Stryker's direct settlements of the Uni–Knee claims. The history of these cases is set forth in detail in the following Sixth Circuit opinions: Stryker Corp. v. XL Insurance America, 735 F.3d 349 (6th Cir.2012) (“Stryker I Appeal ”); Stryker Corp. v. National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh, PA, 681 F.3d 819 (6th Cir.2012) (“Stryker II Appeal ”); Stryker Corp. v. XL Insurance America, 576 Fed.Appx. 496 (6th Cir.2014). The reasonableness of the Stryker settlements is not in dispute.