Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 243398; Unpublished
Judges Zahra, Saad, and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of Citizens on the grounds that plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits arising from a 1995 car accident was barred by the provisions of §3145(1) and that the statute of limitations was not extended by reason of continued communication between the parties beyond the initial 1996 denial of the claim.
Plaintiff was injured in a 1995 accident and gave timely notice of the accident to Citizens. Citizens denied the claim in 1996. Thereafter, plaintiff continued to communicate with Citizens to no end. In 2000, Citizens sent a “fourth and final” denial of the claim, and thereafter, plaintiff filed suit in 2001. In response to defendant’s assertion that the statute of limitations under §3145(1) barred the claim, plaintiff asserted that the continued communication between the parties extended the statute of limitations.
The Court of Appeals held that because the loss was incurred in 1995, the claim for benefits was denied in 1996, and plaintiff filed suit more than one year later, the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition based upon the provisions of §3145(1). Further, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant was estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense because it continued to negotiate with her attorney regarding coverage. The court held that plaintiff did not raise this issue below and thus it had not been preserved for appeal.
