Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #256140; Unpublished
Judges Owens, Fitzgerald, and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use [3121(1)]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-Fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement: Insurer Reimbursement – Other Scenarios
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held a claim for property damage under §3121(1) of the No-Fault Act was not barred by failure of the plaintiff to specifically name the no-fault automobile insurance company responsible for the claim because of the failure of the defendant insured through her attorneys to attach a copy of the no-fault insurance policy to her answer to the complaint as required by MCR 2.113(F), and pursuant to the doctrine of equitable estoppel based upon misrepresentations of defendant’s attorneys regarding the identity of the insurance company.
Defendant Jodie Roll was involved in an accident where a flatbed truck crashed into an electrical utility pole causing it to crash into a house. Farmers Insurance paid for the damages pursuant to its homeowner’s policy on the house. Farmers then sought reimbursement from defendant Roll and filed a lawsuit against her within the one year deadline set forth in §3145(2) of the No-Fault Act, requiring such property damage claims to be filed within one year after the accident. However, Farmers in its complaint named only Jodie Roll and a “John Doe” insurance company, because it did not have the identity of any applicable insurer for Jodie Roll. In her answer to the complaint, with the assistance of attorneys apparently retained by her insurer, Modern Insurance, Roll claimed she could not be sued because of her no-fault policy and because the statute of limitations had expired, her insurance company could not be substituted either. However, in her answer to the complaint, Roll failed to attach a copy of her insurance policy to the answer.
In reversing the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of Roll, the Court of Appeals held the failure to attach the policy to the answer was a violation of the requirements of MCR 2.113(F) and, as a consequence, Roll’s affirmative defense based upon the existence of that no-fault policy failed. The court further held the doctrine of equitable estoppel barred the use of the affirmative defense of the statute of limitations otherwise available under §3145(2) because of the conduct of Roll’s attorneys who knew Modern was her no-fault company and yet did not disclose its identity, despite requests. The court held that in Cincinnati Insurance Company v Citizens Insurance Company, 454 Mich 263 (1977), equitable estoppel is a waiver doctrine that “extends the applicable period of filing a lawsuit by precluding the defendant from raising the statute of limitations a bar.” To invoke the doctrine, one must establish there has been “(1) a false representation or concealment of a material fact, (2) an expectation that the other party will rely upon the misconduct, and (3) knowledge of the actual facts on the part of the representing or concealing party.” The court found all three elements of equitable estoppel existed in this case, as it appeared defense counsel repeatedly refused to answer plaintiff’s queries directly asking for the name of the insurance company, despite defense counsel’s apparent actual knowledge of the facts.
Given the fact any delay in this case was caused by the actions of agents for Modern, the court found there was no prejudice to Modern in allowing a suit against it to go forward despite the expiration of the statute of limitations. Accordingly, the court concluded Modern expected plaintiff to rely on its misconduct and, thus, Modern should have been estopped from raising a statute of limitations defense. The matter was, therefore, reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
