Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 195938; Published
Judges Jansen, Doctoroff, and Gage; __________
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 228 Mich App 167; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Prohibition Against Assigning Future Right to Benefits [§3143]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations for Mental Incompetence [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations (MCL 600.5851 – 600.5856)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published Opinion authored by Judge Gage, the Court of Appeals made two important holdings: (1) the anti-assignment provision of §3143 does not prohibit the assignment of past or presently due benefits, as distinguished from future benefits, and (2) the “insanity savings provision" of the Revised Judicature Act tolls the no-fault "one-year back" statute of limitations, notwithstanding the appointment of a guardian for the disabled person more than one year prior to suit being filed.
The defendant's insured was injured in an automobile accident and many years later, received services for the accident injuries from the plaintiff medical provider. Some time after the accident, but a number of years before the plaintiff’s services were provided, the insured's wife was appointed his guardian. Some two years after the services were provided, the guardian assigned the insured's rights to no-fault first party coverage to the plaintiff service provider who filed suit against the insurance company seeking coverage for the cost of the services.
The defendant insurance company argued that the plaintiff’s claim was barred because an assignment of no-fault benefits is not permitted under §3143 of the No-Fault Act (MCL 500.3173). However, the Court of Appeals, noted that §3143 provides, "an agreement for the assignment of a right to benefits payable in the future is void," and found this language to be clear and unambiguous, stating, "we believe that if the Legislature had intended to prohibit the assignment of all rights, it would not have included the word 'future' in the language of the statute." Therefore, the court held that the assignment of the insured's benefits to the service provider was not void to the extent the assignment was for past and present benefits.
The defendant insurer also argued that the claim was barred under the one year statute of limitation contained in §3145, because suit was brought almost three and one-half years from the date of the last service provided. However, the Court of Appeals stated that the "insanity savings provision" of the Revised Judicature Act, MCLA 600.5851, was applicable for actions for the recovery of no-fault first-party benefits. The defendant argued that even if the savings provision applied, the appointment of a guardian for the insured constituted removal of his disability, and thus the guardian had the responsibility to file a lawsuit for the collection of disallowed payments within one year of appointment. The Court of Appeals, citing Paavola v St. Joseph Hospital Corporation, 119 Mich App 10 (1982), rejected this argument and found that the "appointment of a guardian for a mentally incompetent person is not a removal of the disability" for purposes of the insanity savings provision. Stated differently, the court held that the statute of limitation does not begin to run with the appointment of a guardian on behalf of a mentally incompetent person. However, the court remanded the case to the trial court for a determination as to whether the insured had a condition of mental derangement of such a nature so as to warrant the application of the insanity savings provision.
