An applicant replaced his prior Michigan LTC policy after satisfying its preexisting-condition limitation. The new policy covers a broader mix of services, some unlike anything the prior policy offered. The new insurer applies its own preexisting-condition limitation to those dissimilar benefits. Under M.C.L. 500.3917, is that permissible?

Why B is correct

M.C.L. 500.3917 requires waiver of preexisting-condition and probationary periods for similar benefits to the extent satisfied under the prior policy — and only to that extent. For services the prior policy never covered, nothing has been 'satisfied' to credit, so the new insurer may apply its own limitation period to those genuinely dissimilar benefits. The qualifier is what makes the statute precise: it protects continuity of what was already earned without forcing the new insurer to waive underwriting for coverage that is entirely new, and DIFS polices the line.

Why the other options are wrong

• A) The statute limits limitations; it does not abolish them — dissimilar benefits may still carry the new policy's limitation period.
• C) For similar benefits already satisfied, the limitation does not restart; automatic restart is exactly what M.C.L. 500.3917 forbids.
• D) A full transfer of all waiting periods overstates the rule; the waiver is bounded by similarity and the extent already satisfied.

Memory hook

Credit follows similar benefits only: new coverage, new clock.