Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #253058; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Zahra, and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Notice and Statute of Limitations for Uninsured Motorist Coverage
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court grant of summary disposition on plaintiff’s claim for uninsured motorist benefits, finding the one year limitations period contained within Farm Bureau’s insurance contract was not confusing, ambiguous, in conflict with the statutes of Michigan, tolled, or unreasonable.
Plaintiff was injured on February 6, 2001. On March 2, 2001, plaintiff gave notice to defendant she would be making a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the insurance policy. Defendant responded within 15 days, informing plaintiff she was required to show the tortfeasor was uninsured and she was required to submit medical documents concerning her injuries. Plaintiff failed to show the tortfeasor was uninsured until well after February 6, 2002, and no medical documents were forwarded to defendant until July 16, 2002.
The insurance contract contained a provision for uninsured motorist coverage under part IV, and in addition, the policy was amended pursuant to an amendatory endorsement to part IV which contained the following language: “No claimant may bring a legal action against the company more than one year after the date of the accident.”
After the trial court granted summary disposition for failure of the plaintiff to bring her action within one year, the plaintiff appealed and argued that the amendatory endorsement was confusing and misleading because it was not found in part IV of the policy. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument, relying on Hellebuyck v Farm Bureau General Insurance Company, 262 Mich App 250 (2004), which held the very same amendatory endorsement was not confusing or misleading.
The Court of Appeals also held the same language was not ambiguous, nor was it in conflict with the statute of limitations provisions of MCL 600.5807(8) which would provide a six year statute of limitations for contract actions. The court also held that the time deadline was not tolled, given plaintiff’s failure to comply with the provisions for filing a formal claim pursuant to the insurance policy, and neither defendant nor the operation of the insurance policy significantly contributed to plaintiff’s tardiness.
The Court of Appeals further held the one year deadline is not “unreasonable,” relying upon the recent Supreme Court decision in Rory v Continental Insurance Company [RB #2576].
