Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 248062; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Saad, and O’Connell; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendant on its subrogation action seeking to recover PIP benefits that plaintiff erroneously paid to defendant’s insured. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition for the reason that plaintiff failed to bring the subrogation action within the one year statute of limitations set forth in §3145(1). The Court of Appeals rejected plaintiff’s argument that the general six year statute of limitations should apply to its subrogation claim. The plaintiff based this argument on Titan Insurance Company v Farmers Insurance Exchange [RB #2145]. In rejecting this contention, the court noted that the Titan decision involved a claim for recoupment under §3115(2), which applies when insurers are in the same order of priority for payment of PIP benefits. However, this is not the case where the insurer’s right to recovery or reimbursement is based upon the claim that the insurer is subrogated to the insured’s right to recover benefits. In that case, the subrogation claim is subject to the one year statute of limitations. In so holding, the court stated, “Here, plaintiff sought subrogation, as the two insurers were at different levels of priority. Recoupment concerns equitable distribution of loss between insurers in the same order of priority.” Therefore, pursuant to the holding in Amerisure Companies v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company [RB #1922], the trial court properly granted plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition.
