Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 139129; Published
Judges Griffin, Weaver, and McDonald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 195 Mich App 1; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Limitations Period for PPI Claims [§3145(2)]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Submission of Claim [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam published Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the statute of limitations set forth in §3145(2) barred this claim for property protection insurance benefits because the claim was not filed within one year after the accident as required by that statute, and that the giving of a notice of claim did not toll the statute in claims for property protection benefits.
The car insured by Amerisure was involved in a collision with another car, and as a result, caused damage to a building insured by USF&G. The owner of the building made a claim against USF&G for the property damage and loss of income and use. USF&G investigated and adjusted the damage claim, with payment of the damages ultimately being made more than one year after the date of the accident which occurred on March 26, 1989.
USF&G's adjuster notified Amerisure by letter dated September 12,1989, that it intended to seek subrogation under the property protection insurance benefits provision of the Amerisure no-fault policy on the automobile. A second notice was sent by letter concerning the "pending subrogation claim" of USF&G on December 18, 1989. After the claim was ultimately resolved, a letter dated October 1, 1990 was sent to Amerisure itemizing the claim that it had paid. Amerisure denied the claim, citing §3145(2) which bars an action for recovery of property protection benefits where such actions are commenced later than one year after the accident.
The Court of Appeals held that the giving of a notice of claim did not toll the statute of limitations set forth in §3145(2). The Legislature specifically provided for tolling of the limitations period for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits, and specifically intended to omit any tolling provision with respect to actions for recovery of property protection insurance benefits. According to the Court of Appeals, the plain language of §3145(2) “leads us to conclude that the Legislature, by omitting notice and tolling provisions in that section, which deals with property damage benefits, while including them in §3145(1), which deals with personal injury benefits, did so intentionally. We find no tolling under the facts of this case."
[Editor's Note: This case was inadvertently omitted from prior supplements.]
