Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 202536; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Cavanagh, and O'Connell; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Limitations Period for PPI Claims [§3145(2)]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Submission of Claim [§3145]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of plaintiff s claim for property damage under the No-Fault Act because his complaint was not commenced within the one year statute of limitations set forth in §3145(2) of the act, requiring that an action be commenced for property protection benefits within one (1) year after the accident. The court specifically rejected plaintiff’s argument that by the giving of a notice of claim, the statute of limitations had been tolled, as it would be under §3145(1) of the act.
The Court of Appeals relied on its prior decision in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v Amerisure Insurance Company, 195 Mich App 1 (1992) (Item No. 2014), which had specifically held that because the Legislature specifically provided for tolling of the limitation period for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits, it specifically intended to omit any tolling provision with respect to actions for recovery of property protection insurance benefits.
The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff’s argument that the defendant insurance company was estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense. To establish a claim of estoppel, plaintiff was required to show that defendant made a false representation, had an expectation that the representation would induce reliance, and had knowledge of the actual facts making the representation false. The evidence presented by plaintiff in the instant case was insufficient to survive defendant's motion for summary disposition.
