Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #255903; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Zahra, and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that the one-year back provision contained in §3145(1) of the statute barred plaintiff’s claim and that the one-year back rule was not tolled under the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Lewis v DAIIE, 426 Mich 93 (1986), because Lewis was reversed in Devillers v Auto Club Insurance Association, 473 Mich 562 (2005).
Plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident on June 29, 2001, fracturing his ankle, rendering him unable to perform his seasonal work as a whitewasher. Defendant Farm Bureau paid plaintiff’s weekly wage loss benefits until December 18, 2001, when it stopped paying benefits. In April, 2002, plaintiff informed defendant he was disputing the amount of the wage loss benefit because he claimed defendant had miscalculated his earnings. Defendant eventually denied plaintiff’s claim on January 14, 2003,contending plaintiff had failed to submit requested documentation or file suit by December 18, 2002 and, therefore, plaintiff was barred from recovering any additional benefits by reason of the one-year back rule contained in §3145(1).
In reversing the trial court’s decision relying upon the tolling rule set forth in Lewis, supra, the Court of Appeals noted that the Supreme Court in its recent decision in Devillers, supra, has overruled Lewis and held the one-year back provision must be applied according to the plain language of the statute. Although Devillers had not been decided by the time the trial court herein made its decision, the Supreme Court in Devillers has applied that decision retroactively. The Court of Appeals further rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant should be equitably estopped from raising the statute of limitations and the one-year back rule.
In this case, the defendant never indicated to plaintiff it would honor the claim, only that it needed additional paperwork before it could make its decision. No additional paperwork was received within the statutory one year deadline. The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the savings provisions of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5851(1) should be applied on the basis of his insanity. The Court of Appeals held the savings provision in the RJA does not apply to actions brought under the No-Fault Act, pursuant to the Court of Appeals decision in Cameron v Auto Club Insurance Association, 263 Mich App 95 (2004).
