Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #260562; Published
Judges Fitzgerald, Markey, and Talbot; 2-1 (Judge Fitzgerald concurring); per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 272 Mich. App. 544, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitation
CASE SUMMARY:
In this 2-1 published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed summary disposition for plaintiff on the claim for personal injury protection benefits for a minor child, holding that the one-year back rule, under MCL 500.3145(1), applied to limit the recovery to one year from the date the lawsuit was filed.
In this case, a 5-year-old child was injured in an out-of-state motor vehicle accident that occurred in February, 1994. The child was transferred to Michigan, where the Michigan Department of Community Health (MDCH) paid more than $1.5 million for the child’s care, treatment, and maintenance until the child died on January 24, 2002. On January 16, 2003, plaintiff, the personal representative of the child’s estate and the MDCH sued State Farm for unpaid PIP benefits. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing that the one-year back rule, MCL 500.3145(1), limited the plaintiff’s recovery. The trial court disagreed and entered a judgment for plaintiff. In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that under Cameron v Auto Club Insurance Association, 476 Mich 55 (2006) [RB #2648], §3145(1) bars the plaintiff from recovering PIP benefits incurred more than one year before this case was filed. In this regard, the Court of Appeals stated:
“We hold that MCL 500.3145(1) precludes both plaintiff and the MDCH from recovering any PIP benefits for allowable expenses incurred more than one year before the filing of the instant complaint. Thus, defendant is liable only for allowable expenses incurred after January 16, 2002. . . . We therefore reverse the trial court’s ruling to the contrary and vacate its judgment to the extent it awards plaintiff damages for losses incurred before January 16, 2002.”
Further, the court determined that MCL 600.5821(4), which exempts the State from application of statutes of limitations when it seeks to recover costs expended for the maintenance, care, and treatment of persons in State institutions, does not bar application of the no-fault one-year back rule, because the one-year back rule is not a statute of limitation, it is a damage limitation provision. Therefore, defendant is only liable to the MDCH for costs it incurred for the child’s treatment within one year of the filing of the complaint. In this regard, the court stated:
“MCL 600.5821(4) provides that actions brought by the state or its subdivisions to recover the cost of maintenance, care, and treatment of persons in state institutions ‘are not subject to the statute of limitations and may be brought at any time without limitation, the provisions of any statute notwithstanding.’ We conclude that by the plain import of this language the Legislature intended to exempt the state from statutes of limitations when bringing an action to recover public funds. The language refers to statutes of limitations and provides that an action may be brought at anytime. But the statute does not address damage limitation provisions or any other limiting provisions. In other words, like the minority tolling provision, MCL 600.5821(4) concerns the time during which the state may bring an action; it ‘does not pertain to the damages recoverable once an action has been brought.’. . . Accordingly, we conclude that MCL 600.5821(4), like the minority tolling provision of MCL 600.5851(1), does not operate to toll the ‘one-year-back’ rule of MCL 500.3145(1). . . . Therefore, we hold that defendant is liable to the MDCH only for costs it incurred for Jelinda’s care, maintenance and treatment in state institutions within one year before the filing of the complaint.”
