Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 343010; Unpublished
Judges Swartzle, Kelly, and Tukel; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Court of Claims Litigation
SUMMARY:
In this action to recover unpaid no-fault PIP benefits, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s summary disposition order dismissing Plaintiff’s lawsuit, holding that the plaintiff timely filed her claim within six months of the “event giving rise to the cause of action,” as is required under MCL 600.6431(3), in order to bypass governmental immunity. The Court of Appeals determined that the “event giving rise to the cause of action” was Defendant State of Michigan deciding to cut off Plaintiff’s no-fault PIP benefits two years after her accident, not the accident itself. Therefore, Plaintiff was required under 600.6431(3) to file her lawsuit within six months of the date Defendant cut off benefits, not within six months of the accident itself.
Plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle accident while driving a vehicle owned by her employer, Defendant State of Michigan. Defendant State of Michigan paid no-fault PIP benefits for two years before determining that Plaintiff was not actually disabled and denying further payments. Plaintiff then filed suit in the Court of Claims, arguing that she was entitled to PIP benefits, and Defendant moved for summary disposition based on governmental immunity. MCL 600.6431(3) provides:
In all actions for property damage or personal injuries, claimant shall file with the clerk of the court of claims a notice of intention to file a claim or the claim itself within 6 months following the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action.
Defendant argued that the “event giving rise to the cause of action” was the accident itself, and that Plaintiff had not, therefore, timely filed her complaint. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the “event giving rise to the cause of action” was Defendant’s decision to stop paying benefits and that Plaintiff, therefore, only had to file her complaint within six months of Defendant’s decision.
Our Legislature has defined the date of accrual of a claim more broadly than defendant proposes in this case. The date on which defendant harmed plaintiff is when it informed her that she would no longer receive PIP benefits. See Mays, 323 Mich App at 28. A determination that plaintiff’s claim arose on the date of the car accident would require plaintiff to have filed suit or provided notice of her intent to file at a time when defendant itself had no reason to know that it would discontinue plaintiff’s PIP benefits more than a year later. See id. at 27-28. As our Supreme Court has explained, the limitations period for a cause of action does not begin to run until all elements of the claim exist. Bauserman, __ Mich at __; slip op. at 10-11. It would have been impossible for plaintiff to make a claim for damages against defendant for denial of PIP benefits within six months of the underlying car accident because at that time defendant was still paying her PIP benefits. See Mays, 323 Mich App at 28-29.
