Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259521; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Smolenski, and Talbot; unanimous; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant, finding that plaintiff’s action for first-party no-fault benefits was barred by the one-year back rule under MCL 500.3145(1). It also determined that plaintiff was not entitled to first-party benefits which were incurred within a year of the date he filed this action, because he failed to provide defendant with notice of his alleged brain injury within one year of the date of the accident.
The plaintiff in this case claimed he sustained a closed head injury in a 1982 automobile accident. Plaintiff filed an action against Auto-Owners in 2003, seeking first-party benefits. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition, finding that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the one-year back rule under MCL 500.3145(1).
On appeal, plaintiff argued the Court of Appeals’ 2004 decision in Cameron v Auto Club Insurance Association, 263 Mich App 95 (2004) [RB #2473], was inapplicable to the facts of this case because his claims accrued on the date of his accident in 1982. The Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed, noting that claims accrue when the service is rendered, not when the injury occurs. In this regard, the court stated:
“Here, plaintiff argues that Cameron does not apply to his case and that the limitations period is tolled because his claims accrued before the 1993 amendments to the RJA. However, PIP benefits accrue as the allowable expenses are incurred, not when the injury occurs. . . . Therefore, plaintiff’s argument that his claims accrued in 1982, when the accident occurred, is erroneous. Rather, plaintiff’s claims accrued as the medical and replacement services were purportedly rendered to him.”
Next, the court addressed the plaintiff’s argument that his claim should not be dismissed in its entirety because he is entitled to benefits that accrued within one year of the date he filed this action. The court disagreed. It first noted that plaintiff failed to provide defendant with notice of his injury within a year of the accident. It then noted that plaintiff failed to submit any bills or invoices to defendant for that one-year time period. In this regard, the court explained:
“Next, plaintiff argues that even if Cameron applies to this case, the trial court erred in dismissing his claim in its entirety. In other words, plaintiff argues that he is at least entitled to the benefits that accrued during the one year preceding the filing of this case. We again disagree.
While we note that the trial court did not specifically articulate why it dismissed plaintiff’s claim in its entirety, we presume it did so because plaintiff failed to present any invoices for services rendered during that time frame. And, again, because defendant was never presented with any invoices, there was no denial of benefits. But even if plaintiff had submitted invoices for services incurred during the one year preceding this suit, we agree with defendant that the claims are still barred because there is no evidence that plaintiff notified defendant within one year of the accident of his closed-head injury. Although plaintiff filed a no-fault suit in 1983, his first complaint does not allege any specific injuries, and his medical records from the hospital where he was treated immediately after the accident only noted head lacerations; therefore, there is no evidence that plaintiff put defendant on notice of his closed-head injury. And the statute requires that the insurer be put on notice of a specific injury, not just of a general claim.”
