Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 205256; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Whitbeck, and G. S. Allen, Jr.; Unanimous; Opinion by MacKenzie
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 232 Mich App 656; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Limitations Period for PPI Claims [§3145(2)]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge MacKenzie, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff’s claim for property damage benefits was time barred by the statute of limitations contained in §3145(2) which provides that an action for recovery of property protection benefits shall not be commenced later than one year after the accident. The court declined to find that the statute was tolled by plaintiff’s notice of claim and the parties' pending negotiations.
Secura insured a home that was damaged by fire as a result of a power surge caused by electric lines that fell on the home's service line when a motorist insured by Auto-Owners struck a utility pole. The accident occurred on March 2, 1996, and the complaint for damages was not filed until 13 months after the accident on April 1, 1997.
Secura submitted notice of claim on May 3, 1996, Auto-Owners acknowledged the notice, but raised questions concerning the claim. In a February, 1997 telephone conversation, an Auto-Owners adjuster told Secura's adjuster that Secura should file a lawsuit for the claim. The lawsuit was not filed until after the one year statute of limitations contained in §3145(2) of the No-Fault Act.
Relying upon the Court of Appeals decision in United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company v Amerisure Insurance Company, 195 Mich App 1 (1992) (Item No. 2014), the court concluded that a notice to a no-fault insurer of a claim for property protection benefits does not toll the one year period of limitations set forth in §3145(2) during the parties' settlement negotiations. The court held that USF&G, supra, is binding precedent under Administrative Order No. 1994-4. The court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the 1983 decision of Preferred Risk Mutual Insurance Company v Stale Farm Mutual Insurance Company (Item No. 658) governs this case. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly concluded that USF&G is binding authority and that the conflicting holding in Preferred Risk was not.
The Court of Appeals also rejected plaintiff’s claim that under Cincinnati Insurance Company v Citizens Insurance Company, 454 Mich 263 (1997) (Item No. 1928), Auto-Owners should be "equitably estopped" from asserting the statute of limitations in this case. The Court of Appeals distinguished the decision in Cincinnati, supra, as one in which the claimant had acted in good faith and for the convenience of the insurer in deferring its demand for payment. The insured delayed its action at the request of the insurance company. In the instant case, Auto-Owners informed plaintiff that it had questions concerning the cause of the fire and, approximately one month before the expiration of the one year period, informed plaintiff that it would not settle the case. There is no indication that the conduct of Auto-Owners induced Secura to refrain from bringing an action within the period fixed by statute.
