Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #262887; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Schuette, and Borrello; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statues 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court decision that plaintiff had failed to timely file his claim for uninsured motorist benefits and further held the statute of limitations was not tolled by the provisions of MCL 600.5856 because the prior lawsuit upon which plaintiff relied for tolling had not been filed and served against the insurance company defendant.
Plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident on November 26, 2000, when a piece of wood dislodged from an automobile that was driven by defendant Harvard. The piece of wood went through the windshield of plaintiff’s motor vehicle causing injury from the debris and broken glass. Mr. Harvard was not insured. Plaintiff was insured by Citizens at the time of the accident. Plaintiff filed suit against Harvard in March, 2003, but ultimately dismissed that case without prejudice. In December, 2003 (more than three years after the accident), plaintiff began corresponding with Citizens concerning his claim for uninsured motorist benefits. However, plaintiff did not file his second case against Harvard and Citizens Insurance until August, 2004. Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition based upon the statute of limitations contained in MCL 600.5805(2). Defendant contended the claim should have been filed within three years.
Plaintiff did not contest the three year statute of limitations at the trial level. The trial court found that tolling did not apply by reason of the filing of the previous lawsuit, because that lawsuit had not been filed against Citizens, but rather, only against Mr. Harvard.
On appeal, plaintiff alleged that a six year statute of limitations applied rather than a three year statute. The Court of Appeals held plaintiff had not argued below that a six year statute applied, but rather, had agreed a three year statute applied. With regard to the tolling argument, the court held the provisions of MCL 600.5856 would toll the running of a statute of limitations if a prior lawsuit has been served on the defendant. In this case, the previous lawsuit against Harvard had not included Citizens Insurance as a defendant and, therefore, the provisions of that statute are not applicable and do not toll the running of the statute of limitations.
