Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #229183; Unpublished
Judges Gage, Griffin and Buth; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Notice and Statute of Limitations for Underinsured
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition in favor of Continental Insurance Company on plaintiff’s claim for underinsured motorist benefits. The dismissal was based upon the fact that plaintiff’s claim was untimely, in that it had not been made within the one (1) year claim limitation provision of the policy. In this regard, the policy required that a “claim or suit must be brought within 1 year from the date of the accident.” In this particular case, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against defendant for no-fault first-party benefits within one year of the date of the accident. However, it was not until approximately 17 months after the accident that plaintiff’s counsel notified defendant by letter that plaintiff had been advised that the tortfeasor’s liability limits were only $20,000 and therefore, plaintiff was claiming entitlement to underinsured motorist benefits under the policy. The plaintiff claimed that his suit for first-party benefits served as sufficient notice of potential additional claims, including a claim for underinsured motorist coverage, and therefore, plaintiff’s claim was not untimely. The Court of Appeals agreed with the trial court that plaintiff’s claim was time barred. Citing Morley v Automobile Club of Michigan [Item No. 1997], the court noted that a similar argument had been rejected in a case where plaintiff had filed a lawsuit for first-party benefits and then attempted to pursue an untimely claim for uninsured motorist benefits. The court held that the filing of the earlier PIP lawsuit was not sufficient notice because it made no mention of a possible underinsured motorist claim. Therefore, the notice was defective. The court also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the court should adopt a “discovery rule” that permits the filing of a claim within a year after discovering that the alleged tortfeasor was underinsured. The court declined to do so and in so holding, noted that the insurance policy language does not actually require the filing of a lawsuit, but simply the filing of a claim. In this regard, the court stated:
“Moreover we conclude that because the policy requires filing a claim of entitlement to underinsured motorist coverage within the one-year period, and not necessarily a lawsuit for failure to provide such coverage, the one-year claims period is not so unreasonable as to be unenforceable.”
