Lewis v Flournoy and Citizens Insurance Company; (COA-UNP, 3/28/1994; RB #1708)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 155478; Unpublished  
Judges Cavanagh, Wahls, and Crockett; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt   


STATUTORY INDEXING:  
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]

TOPICAL INDEXING:  
Not Applicable    


CASE SUMMARY:  
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's ruling that plaintiffs suit for no-fault first party benefits was barred by the No-Fault Act's one year statute of limitations provision. 

Plaintiff was injured in a single-car accident in Detroit while he was a passenger in a vehicle owned by his brother-in-law, James Flournoy. The vehicle had been previously used by Mr. Flournoy's daughter, who had resided in Missouri and had maintained insurance on the vehicle in Missouri. The brother-in-law did not insure the car under his policy of no-fault insurance that had been issued by Citizens and which covered other vehicles. Plaintiff was initially paid PIP benefits by the Missouri insurer. However, the Missouri insurance company determined it was not liable, and the PIP benefits were repaid by plaintiff. Nineteen months after the accident had occurred, plaintiff then submitted a claim with Citizens Insurance Company for PIP benefits. Citizens denied the claim on the basis that the automobile was not a covered automobile under the insurance policy. When plaintiff filed suit, the trial court granted defendant's summary disposition, holding that plaintiffs claim was barred by the one year statute of limitations provided under §3145(1) of the No-Fault Act.  

The Court of Appeals affirmed. The court held that the limitation period was not tolled while the claim was pending with the Missouri insurer. Relying on its earlier decision of Pendergast v American Fidelity Fire Insurance, 118 Mich App 838 (1982) (Item No. 1200), the court held that the fact that the plaintiff, in the exercise of due diligence, could not identify the appropriate insurer, was insufficient to toll the period of limitations.