are “subject to the same contract construction principles that apply to any other species of contract.” Id. at 461. As this Court noted in Rohlman v Hawkeye-Security Ins Co, 442 Mich 520, 525 n 3; 502 NW2d 310 (1993), quoting 12A Couch, Insurance, 2d (rev ed), § 45:694, pp 331-332, [the insurance] policy and the statutes relating thereto must be read and construed together as though the statutes were a part of the contract, for it is to be presumed that the parties contracted with the intention of executing a policy satisfying the statutory requirements, and intended to make the contract to carry out its purpose. Thus, when a provision in an insurance policy is mandated by statute, the rights and limitations of the coverage are governed by that statute. See Rohlman, 442 Mich at 524-525 (<HOLDING>). On the other hand, when a provision in an
holding that because personal injury protection benefits are mandated by mcl 5003105 that statute governs issues regarding an award of those benefits holding that retirement benefits are accrued benefits under erisa holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate holding that disability benefits are not retirementtype benefits holding that unemployment compensation benefits received by plaintiff are collateral source and that defendant could not reduce personal injury damages because of such benefits