write group disability policies that cover persons who live and work in this state are subject to the obligations of the Michigan Insurance Code. Further, even assuming that the construction and interpretation of this insurance policy are governed by the laws of Minnesota, Michigan courts will enforce such a policy, valid in Minnesota, only to the extent that its provisions do not contravene the public policy of Michigan, Lieberthal v. Glens Falls Indemnity Co., 316 Mich. 37, 24 N.W.2d 547 (1946). Thus, if Michigan public policy proscribes the enforcement of a coordination of benefits provision that does not conform with those set forth in the Michigan Insurance Code, Michigan courts will not enforce the provision, cf. Muma v. Financial Guardian, Inc., 551 F.Supp. 119 (E.D.Mich.1982) (<HOLDING>). THE SUBROGATION PROVISION DOES NOT APPLY TO
holding employment agreement consisting entirely of a covenant not to compete unenforceable because the covenant must be supported by valuable consideration holding that a covenant not to compete for two years was enforceable holding that in the employment context cause of action seeking tort remedies for breach of implied covenant is not permitted recovery for breach of this covenant is limited to contract remedies holding that the restraint of a covenant not to compete must be reasonable under the facts and circumstances of the particular case and that only a legitimate business interest may be protected by the covenant holding that michigan courts would not enforce a covenant not to compete which violates mcla 445761 even though the covenant would have been enforceable in missouri where the contract was executed