Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #274085; Unpublished
Judges Cavanagh, Jansen, and Borrello; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant Bristol West, finding that plaintiffs’ claim for personal injury protection benefits was barred by the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(1). The plaintiff in this case was injured in a motor vehicle accident for which he received rehabilitative treatment from plaintiffs from November 2003 to February 2004. In July 2005, plaintiffs sued defendant Bristol West to recover the cost of the rehabilitative treatment. The trial court granted Bristol West summary disposition, finding that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the one-year-back rule.
On appeal, plaintiffs argued that they should be allowed to maintain an action for fraud and misrepresentation based upon Bristol West’s fraudulent misrepresentation of its intent to pay upon receipt of requested documentation. However, the fact that Bristol West ultimately failed to pay the expense does not support an inference that it deliberately misrepresented its intent. Moreover, plaintiffs cannot evade the one-year-back rule by attempting to recast their claim for PIP benefits as a different cause of action. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . we conclude that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ action against defendant, because it sought recovery for losses sustained more than one year before plaintiffs filed the action. Plaintiffs also contend that they should be permitted to maintain an independent action for fraud and misrepresentation based on defendant’s fraudulent representation of its intent to pay. Although an action for fraud can be based on an unfulfilled promise to perform in the future if the promise was made with a present undisclosed intent not to perform . . . plaintiffs have not presented any evidence that defendant made a promise to pay with an intent not to perform when the promise was made. Indeed, plaintiffs allege that defendant promised to pay the expenses upon submission of requested documentation showing that the expenses were not covered by Parrish’s health insurance, but plaintiffs do not claim that the requested documentation was ever submitted. Further, the mere fact that defendant ultimately failed to pay the expenses does not support an inference that it deliberately misrepresented its intent. More importantly, plaintiffs cannot evade the one-year-back rule by attempting to recast their claim for PIP benefits as a different cause of action.”
