Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #250070; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, White and Kelly; 2-1 (Judge White dissenting); 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In this 2-1 unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of defendants on plaintiff’s claim for no-fault insurance benefits because of the one-year statute of limitations applicable to no-fault PIP claims. In this case, plaintiff was injured while driving a vehicle owned by his employer, Waste Management, and insured by Pacific Employers Insurance Company. He filed a worker’s compensation claim which was handled by his employer’s worker’s compensation administrator, Gallagher Basset Services. More than a year later, plaintiff filed a claim for no-fault benefits which was denied. The Court of Appeals found that under MCL 500.3145(1), although his employer received timely notice of the accident, as did the worker’s compensation administrator, this was insufficient to provide notice to the employer’s no-fault insurance carrier within one year of the accident. In so holding, the court noted that if an employer’s worker’s compensation insurer and no-fault insurer are one in the same, notice to the worker’s compensation insurer may be sufficient. However, the worker’s compensation insurer and the no-fault insurer were not the same entity and, therefore, notice to one was not notice to the other. In this regard, the court stated:
“If an employer’s worker’s compensation carrier and no-fault insurance carrier [are] one and the same, notice of the injury and other information required under §3145(1) provided to the insurer in connection with a worker’s compensation claim may or may not be sufficient to toll the one-year limitations period. . . . It is undisputed that no insurer was given notice of the injury. The only entity besides Waste Management to receive notice was Gallagher, the worker’s compensation claims administrator. . . . Plaintiff contends that a question of fact exists as to the identity of Waste Management’s worker’s compensation carrier because in a document filed with the state, a Gallagher employee identified Pacific as the worker’s compensation carrier. We disagree. Apart from the fact that there is no evidence to show that the employee’s identification of the insurer had any basis in fact, the policy document itself clearly shows that Pacific was not the worker’s compensation carrier. Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion.”
Judge White dissented.
