in this state, and must therefore comply with the terms of M.C.L.A. 500.3606. The fact that the terms of the policy were negotiated in another state, or that the policy was executed by the parties to the policy in another state, does not vitiate this result. The Court acknowledges New England Mutual’s argument that it is burdensome to require an insurer to submit its policies for approval to the administrative agencies of the states in which every beneficiary of the policy is located. Nonetheless, the Court concludes that Michigan has a sufficient interest in the application of its law for the protection of its residents in such a case as this to require that the hardship must be borne by insurers. Cf. Guardian Life Ins. Co. v. Insurance Commissioner, 293 Md. 629, 446 A.2d 1140 (1982) (<HOLDING>). The question then arises, if New England
holding that maryland law controls the operation of a group health insurance policy that covers employees who live and work in maryland notwithstanding the fact that the policy was executed in rhode island and contained a provision that the law of rhode island would control the operation and effect of the policy holding that an arbitration award involving the appellants challenge to the failure of the insurance company to ensure that he had read and understood a signed waiver and to attach the waiver to the insurance policy as contrary to public policy is not reviewable by the courts because there is no challenge to a provision or term of the policy the appellant never claimed that the waiver or policy language itself was contrary to the public policy of this commonwealth holding fact that prototype group disability policy submitted to insurance department for approval contained blanks and that therefore policy actually issued with blanks filled in may have been unapproved in violation of insurance statutes did not warrant voiding of nonduplication of benefits clause in group disability policy recognizing that production of a written insurance policy was unnecessary to prove the existence of the policy because the proof required was proof of the fact of insurance and not of the contents of a writing holding that public policy favors the exclusion of intentional acts as contained in the mjua policy