Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 202195; Unpublished
Judges Markman, Hoekstra, and Zahra; 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In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations should bar plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits and rejected plaintiff’s estoppel argument that Auto Club had, by promises of payment of his claim, induced him to not hire an attorney. In this case, the evidence demonstrated that plaintiff in fact had hired several attorneys to represent him during the period of time in which he claims he had been induced by Auto Club's promises not to hire an attorney.
In order for plaintiff’s estoppel argument to prevail in avoidance of the statute of limitations, plaintiff must show that he fired his attorney and refrained from hiring another during the period in which the statute of limitations lapsed. Plaintiff’s testimony in fact showed that he had consulted with numerous attorneys during that period, some of whom left his employ of their own volition. Under these facts, since plaintiff actually hired attorneys during the period in which he claims he was relying upon defendant's promise to resolve the claim, no reasonable juror could have concluded that plaintiff actually relied upon defendant's alleged representations. Therefore, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of Auto Club.
