Michigan Supreme Court; Docket #152484; Published
Justices Bernstein, Markman, Zahra, McCormack, Viviano, Larsen; Non-Unanimous Opinion by Justice Bernstein (Justice Young, dissenting); Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Required Content of Notice/Sufficiency of Notice [§3145(1)]
Who May Give Notice [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published opinion written by Justice Bernstein, the Supreme Court vacated the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant Zurich American Insurance Company (“Zurich”) on the issue of whether plaintiff Dragen Perkovich (“Perkovich”) provided sufficient written notice within one year of his accident, as required by MCL 500.3145. The Court held the one-year notice rule under MCL 500.3145(1) was sufficiently satisfied when Perkovich’s medical provider submitted medical records and bills to Zurich within one year of the accident.
Plaintiff Perkovich was injured while driving a semitruck insured by his employer, Zurich, and recevied treatment from The Nebraska Medical Center (“Nebraska”). Pursuant to his course of treatment, and within two months of the accident, The Nebraska Medical Center submitted Perkovich’s medical records and a bill for service to Zurich. Zurich denied payment, and Perkovich filed suit against his own insurers, Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest and Hudson Insurance Company, but did not add Zurich as a party until almost thirteen months post-accident. Zurich was ultimately deemed to be the insurer of highest priority, and moved for summary disposition, arguing that Perkovich’s claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations. Perkovich, in response, contended that the medical records and bills sent to Zurich by The Nebraska Medical Center satisfied the notice requirements under MCL 500.3145(1), and therefore tolled the statute of limitations.
The Supreme Court agreed with Perkovich, finding that the medical records and bills did in fact satisfy the notice requirement under MCL 500.3145(1). The Court noted that “500.3145(1) does not mandate any particular format for this notice, nor does it require language explicitly indicating a possible claim for benefits, nor does it require a statement that a claim is forthcoming.”
The Court also concluded that “the fact that plaintiff might have been unaware of the Nebraska Medical center’s transmission of notice to defendant is not detrimental to his claim. The penultimate sentence of MCL 500.3145(1) provides that notice may be given ‘by a person claiming to be entitled to benefits therefor, or by someone in his behalf.’”
The Court summarized its conclusions, writing:
Therefore, we conclude that the notice given in this case satisfied the first exception of MCL 500.3145(1) so that the one-year statute of limitations does not bar plaintiff’s claim. The documents transmitted to defendant contained all of the information required by MCL 500.3145(1) and were sent in behalf of plaintiff by The Nebraska Medical Center. The statute does not require any additional information about the possible pendency of a claim.
