Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259168; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Hoekstra, and Murray; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
On April 23, 2008, the Michigan Supreme Court REVERSED the judgment of the Court of Appeals; Link to MSC Summary
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Notice and Statute of Limitations for Uninsured Motorist Benefits
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for plaintiff, finding plaintiff’s notice of uninsured benefits, mailed to defendant insurer six months after the motor vehicle accident, tolled the limitation period contained in the contract of insurance until defendant formally denied plaintiff’s claim.
The plaintiff in this case was seriously injured in a collision which occurred on November 21, 2001. Plaintiff mailed notice of her claim for underinsured benefits on May 10, 2002. Defendant denied the claim on December 10, 2002, on the basis that the one-year time limit provided for in the insurance contract had expired. Plaintiff filed an action for declaratory judgment. The trial court granted plaintiff summary disposition, finding that the contractual period of limitations was equitably tolled by plaintiff’s letter. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the one-year period of limitation was equitably tolled by plaintiff’s letter until defendant officially rejected the claim. In so holding, the court noted that although the doctrine of equitable tolling was abrogated by the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Devillers v Auto Club Insurance Association, 473 Mich 562 (2005) [RB # 2646] and Rory v Continental Insurance Company, 473 Mich 457 (2005) [RB #2576], in West v Farm Bureau General Insurance Company,272 Mich App 58 (2006) [RB #2777], the Court of Appeals held that Devillers does not apply to insurance contract claims and Rory must be given prospective application. In this regard, the court stated:
“The trial court correctly determined that this period of limitation was equitably tolled by plaintiff’s letter of May 10, 2002 until defendant officially rejected plaintiff’s claim on December 10, 2002.
* * *
In the present case, the trial court determined that the equitable tolling doctrine adopted in Tom Thomas Org, Inc v Reliance Ins Co, 396 Mich 588; 242 NW2d 396 (1976) served to toll the contractual period of limitations. On appeal defendant correctly notes that the doctrine of equitable tolling adopted in Tom Thomas, supra was effectively abrogated by the decisions in Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 582; 702 NW2d 539 (2005) (noting that statutory and contractual language must be enforced according to its plain meaning) and Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457; 703 NW2d 23 (2005)(holding that an unambiguous contractual provision must be enforced as written unless the provision would violate law or public policy). However, this Court recently held that the decision in Devillers does not apply to insurance contract claims, such as the present claim, which are ‘wholly separate from the no-fault act and the associated statutes of limitations.’ West v Farm Bureau General Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___, ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2006). Further, the Court in West also held that the decision in Rory must be applied prospectively. Therefore, the doctrine of equitable tolling properly applies to this case.”
