Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #306827; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Fort Hood, and Servitto; Unanimous; Per Curiam;
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Time Limitations Applicable to Enforcing Indemnity or Reimbursement Rights Against Third Parties [§3175(3)]
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Reimbursement to Servicing Insurer or ACF [§3172(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part a finding by the trial court that plaintiff Farm Bureau was entitled to seek reimbursement from defendant Allstate Insurance Company pursuant to the provisions of MCL 500.3175(3) which allows for enforcement of rights to indemnity or reimbursement against a third-party provided the action is commenced not later than two years after the assignment of the claim to the Assigned Claims Facility insurer or one year after the date of the last payment “to the claimant.”
In this case, pedestrian Merrill Hall was struck by a vehicle operated by defendant Eucheria Chukwueke. Hall filed an application for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits with the Assigned Claims Facility which assigned the matter to Farm Bureau. Farm Bureau administered Hall’s claim and paid $448,693 in medical expenses on his behalf. Farm Bureau then filed a claim against Allstate seeking recovery of its loss adjustment costs and benefits paid, as permitted by MCL 500.3175(3). Defendant Allstate admitted it insured the vehicle at the time of the accident but argued the statute of limitations contained in §3175(3) barred plaintiff’s claim, because plaintiff did not file its complaint within two years after it was assigned Hall’s claim and because Farm Bureau did not make any payments directly to Hall.
In response to Allstate’s argument that the language of §3175(3), in which an action is permitted within one year after the date of the last payment “to the claimant,” meant an action could only be commenced within one year after a payment had been made to the injured person, Hall, the Court of Appeals held the term “the claimant” in §3175(3) refers to a party that files a claim for PIP benefits, including medical providers, and is not limited to the injured person. The court held that interpreting the term “the claimant” in the statute to be identical to the phrase “injured person” would not give effect to every word in the statute and would render the term “the claimant” mere surplusage. The court pointed out that MCL 500.3109(2) defines “injured person” as “a natural person suffering accidental bodily injury.” The court further pointed out that in Lakeland Neurocare Ctrs v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 250 Mich App 35 (2002), it was recognized that the terms “claimant” and “injured person” have two different meanings.
However, the court also held that the statutory reference to “the claimant” indicated that each claimant must be considered individually. Giving effect to the word “the,” an action may not be commenced more than one year after the date of the last payment to the individual claimant with respect to which indemnity or reimbursement is sought. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the trial court for determination of when payments were made to particular claimants for purposes of implementation of the one year deadline.
The court also addressed Allstate’s argument that the so-called one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1) also barred recovery of any benefits paid more than one year before the complaint was filed. The court held that the one-year period of limitation in §3145(1) is inapplicable when an assignee of the Assigned Claims Facility brings a claim for reimbursement pursuant to its statutory right to reimbursement set forth in MCL 500.3172(1). The court reasoned that in such cases, the assignee’s claim asserts an independent, statutorily created right to reimbursement, and the assignee did not bring its claim as a subrogee of the injured party. Accordingly, §3175(3) applies to reimbursement actions and the one-year-back rule of §3145(1) is inapplicable.
