Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 271919; Published
Judges Whitbeck, Bandstra, and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 274 Mich. App. 298, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Coverage: Notice and Statute of Limitations for Underinsured Motorist Coverage
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that an injured person is not entitled to underinsurance benefits where the person did not comply with the policy’s one-year notice provision, even though the Insurance Commissioner issued an Order requiring that all underinsurance policies provide for a three-year notice provision because the Order was not retroactive.
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on January 6, 2003. Over time, the seriousness of plaintiff’s injuries became apparent and plaintiff sought underinsurance benefits two-and-one-half years after the accident. Defendant argued that plaintiff was not entitled to underinsured motorist benefits because she did not comply with its policy’s one-year notice provision. The trial court disagreed, citing the Insurance Commissioner’s Notice and Order of Prohibition 06-008-M, which provided that:
“insurance companies ‘shall not issue, advertise, or deliver to any person in this state a policy or rider that limits the time to file a claim or commence suit for underinsured motorist benefits to less than three years unless [the insurance company] was legally using that policy prior to the date of this notice . . . .’ The order further stated that ‘the same considerations applicable to insured motorist coverage apply with equal or greater force to underinsured motorist coverage.’”
In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted the Order was not retroactive and, therefore, was inapplicable. In this regard, the court stated:
“On December 16, 2005, the Insurance Commissioner issued a Notice and Order of Prohibition under MCL 500.2236(5), . . . ‘that a one-year period for making claims or filing suit for uninsured motorist benefits is unreasonable.’ However, the order expressly stated that it is ‘effective immediately’ and did not state that it was retroactive. The order also clearly stated that it does not modify existing policies lawfully in effect, and insurance companies may continue ‘to use any policy form or rider that it may have been legally using in Michigan prior to the date of this notice. . . .’ Finally, the order stated that ‘[t]he Commissioner is currently considering what action is appropriate with regard to those policies or riders in use before the date of this notice and order.’”
