Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #267986; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Meter, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitaiton [3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court improperly denied defendant State Farm’s motion for summary disposition, finding that the doctrine of equitable estoppel did not bar defendant from asserting its statute of limitations defense.
Plaintiff’s husband died after he lost control of his motorcycle and crashed. Plaintiff stated she called her agent’s office shortly after his death and inquired if she was entitled to benefits. An unidentified person erroneously told her no. However, a representative of the motorcycle’s insurer told her State Farm was responsible. Plaintiff sought benefits from State Farm a year and one-half after the accident. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing the one-year statute of limitations contained in MCL 500.3145(1) barred plaintiff’s claim. The trial court denied defendant’s motion, ruling it was equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations defense because plaintiff had received erroneous information from an unidentified representative of defendant. The Court of Appeals reversed, reasoning there was no evidence that defendant concealed plaintiff’s cause of action, misrepresented the applicable time period involved, or tried to dissuade her from seeking benefits at an earlier time. Further, because plaintiff received conflicting information from another source, plaintiff should not have unquestionably relied on the earlier information. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . the evidence presented below shows, at most, that an unknown individual . . . erroneously responded to plaintiff’s inquiry regarding the extent of coverage, if any, for the accident at issue. The evidence fails, however, to establish any basis for concluding that State Farm concealed plaintiff’s cause of action, misrepresented the applicable period of limitation, or otherwise attempted to dissuade plaintiff from commencing action at an earlier time. . . . Furthermore, given that the response was in direct contrast to information received by plaintiff from Husulak’s motorcycle insurer, whom plaintiff testified at deposition informed her that a claim for benefits ‘fell’ to the insurer of Husulak’s automobile, we do not agree with the trial court that plaintiff could be expected to unquestioningly rely on the response such that the equitable doctrine of estoppel should be applied to preclude State Farm from asserting the statute of limitations defense.”
