Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #274416; Unpublished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)]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant Farm Bureau on plaintiff’s claim for personal injury protection benefits, finding that the claim was barred by the one-year-back rule contained in MCL 500.3145(1).
On August 1, 2005, the plaintiff in this case filed an action for personal injury protection benefits for expenses incurred in 2003 and 2004. Farm Bureau moved for summary disposition based on the one-year-back rule. Plaintiff argued that summary disposition should be denied because Farm Bureau had rejected plaintiff’s claim for benefits in an April 19, 2005 letter that referenced a settlement. However, there was no settlement. Nonetheless, the trial court granted Farm Bureau’s motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, noting that although the court in Devillers v Auto Club Insurance Association, 473 Mich 562 (2005) [Item No. 2646], recognized that courts retain their equitable powers in unusual circumstances, this case does not present one of those circumstances. Although Farm Bureau’s reference to settlement was inaccurate, Farm Bureau denied the submission in clear and unmistakable terms. Therefore, the letter could not have mislead plaintiff into believing that the expenses had been paid. In this regard, the court stated:
“We agree with plaintiff that while Devillers overruled the concept of judicial tolling established in Lewis v DAIIE, 426 Mich 93; 393 NW2d 167 (1986), it recognized that courts still retain equitable powers in cases of fraud, mutual mistake, or other ‘unusual circumstances.’. . . Here, plaintiff relies only on defendant’s April 19, 2005, letter to support her claim for equitable relief. Although the reference to a settlement was inaccurate, the letter went on to state, in clear and unmistakable terms, that ‘the enclosed charges are being denied’ and that ‘the enclosed bills are your responsibility for payment.’ Thus, the letter could not have misled plaintiff into believing that she would not be responsible for the submitted bills or that defendant had agreed to cover them. Because no other ‘unusual circumstances’ were present, there was no basis for invoking the trial court’s equitable powers to avoid application of the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1) in the present case. The trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition.”
