Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 229253; Published
Judges White, Murphy and Fitzgerald; unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 252 Mich. App. 247, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published opinion by Judge White, the Court of Appeals held that the no-fault statute supercedes a 60 day notice provision contained in MCL 124.419 requiring parties asserting claims against transportation authorities to submit their claims within 60 days. Thus, plaintiff did not need to comply with the notice statute as to her claim for first-party no-fault benefits. However, the court held the notice statute is enforceable as to the third-party claim for personal injury, but remanded for further proceedings concerning whether or not the transportation authority (SMART) suffered “actual prejudice” from the failure to timely provide the notice.
Plaintiff was injured while a passenger on a bus owned by the defendant Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART). SMART was the equivalent of a self-insurer under 3101(4). However, as a transportational authority, SMART took the position that the separate notice statute contained in MCL 124.419 required notice within 60 days of the accident. Plaintiff contended that the no-fault statute and the one year statute of limitations contained therein in section 3145 superceded the notice statute applicable to transportation authorities. In ruling in favor of the plaintiff, the Court of Appeals held that the claim for no-fault PIP benefits is a statutory claim, and under the No-Fault Act, SMART is the equivalent of an insurer governed by the Act. The No-Fault Act has its own notice requirements for filing PIP claims. The Legislature did not intend that a person entitled to no-fault PIP benefits under the Act forfeit those benefits for failure to adhere to a notice requirement that is inconsistent with the time periods allowed by the No-Fault Act. Therefore, the notice provisions of MCL 124.419 are inapplicable to the statutory no-fault claim for first-party no-fault benefits.
As to plaintiff’s third-party claim, the Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings on the issue of actual prejudice. The Michigan Supreme Court has held in Brown v Manistee County Road Commission, 452 Mich 354; 550 NW2d 215 (1996), that a governmental agency asserting a statutory notice defense must show actual prejudice from the failure to provide the notice. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in ruling that actual prejudice was not required.
