Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 216995; Unpublished
Judges O'Connell, Meter, and Hicks; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Limitations Period for PPI Claims [§3145(2)]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Equitable Estoppel
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of a property damage claim on the basis that the plaintiff had failed to file the claim against State Farm within the one year statute of limitations contained in section 3145(2), and rejected Hastings' argument that the auto insurer, State Farm, should be imputed with its insured's actions in lulling Hastings into believing that she was uninsured.
The damages occurred when defendant Cole drove a car owned by her mother into the side of a home insured by Hastings. Hastings paid the property damage claim and then sought recovery of those damages from Cole and her auto insurer, State Farm.
In rejecting Hastings' claim that State Farm should be estopped from asserting the one year statute of limitations by reason of its insured's actions, the Court of Appeals held that there was no obligation on the part of the insured, Cole, to communicate information to Hastings about her insurance company. There was no evidence that State Farm did anything to prevent Hastings from gaining knowledge of the fact that Cole did have insurance with State Farm. Although Cole may have lulled Hastings into believing that she was uninsured by not responding to Hastings' request for insurance information, there was no evidence that she did anything at State Farm's direction or with State Farm's knowledge in order to prevent Hastings from obtaining information regarding her insurance company. There was no reason to impute Cole's actions to State Farm. Therefore, estoppel did not apply.