Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #299621; Unpublished
Judges Murphy, Jansen, and Owens; unanimous: per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Equitable Estoppel
Uninsured Motorist Benefits – Notice and Statute of Limitations for Uninsured Motorist Coverage
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals
affirmed the trial court's Order granting National Indemnity's Motion for Summary
Disposition that sought to dismiss the plaintiff's claim for uninsured motorist benefits on
the basis that the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations contained
within the uninsured motorist policy. In granting National Indemnity's motion, the court
rejected the plaintiff's argument that the doctrine of equitable estoppel should preclude
National Indemnity from raising the statute of limitations defense against the plaintiff's
claim.
The plaintiff in this case was involved in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on
November 28, 2005. On June 19, 2009, the plaintiff filed his lawsuit seeking, in part,
benefits for uninsured motorist coverage under his employer's insurance policy. The
policy required that absent certain exceptions not applicable to the facts of this case,
any action seeking benefits for uninsured motorist coverage must be filed within three
years after the accident.
The plaintiff argued that the defendant should be estopped from relying on the three-
year statute of limitations period in the policy because it did not provide him with a copy
of the policy when requested, and because it did not otherwise alert him of the three-
year statute of limitations period. Ultimately the defendant argued that while National
Indemnity did not directly mislead the plaintiff about the statute of limitations, National
Indemnity failed to disclose the statute of limitations to the plaintiff before it expired.
In affirming the trial court's Order granting summary disposition in favor of National
Indemnity, the Court of Appeals rejected the plaintiff's argument that National Indemnity
had an equitable duty to disclose that it was relying on the three-year statute of
limitations period. The court explained that it was not willing to impose this type of duty
on National Indemnity. The court explained that a stronger argument would exist if, for
example, the plaintiff had inquired about the statute of limitations period or referred to
his belief that the statute of limitations period was longer and defendant did not respond
to those statements. The court ultimately reasoned that the defendant's inaction or
silence is not a basis for imposing an equitable duty for National Indemnity to inform
the plaintiff of the requirements for exercising his rights under the terms of the policy at
issue.
The court further explained that even if it accepted the plaintiff's argument that National
Indemnity's inaction in response to the plaintiff's request for a copy of the policy should
be treated as sufficiently misleading conduct for the purposes of equitable estoppel, the
plaintiff would still be unable to show that it was justifiable to rely on his belief that the
three-year statute of limitations would not be enforced. Accordingly, the court reasoned
that the lack of justifiable reliance was another reason to reject the plaintiff's argument
regarding equitable estoppel.
The court further rejected the plaintiff's argument that because he was not a party to
the insurance policy at issue, he should be entitled to "equitable tolling" of the statute of
limitations under the policy. The court explained that there are no appellate decisions
that have held that a party's status as a contracting party or a mere beneficiary of the
contract was significant to the determination of whether equitable estoppel should apply.
