Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 206871; Unpublished
Judge Griffin, Neff, and Bandstra; 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]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court ruling that an action for pro rata recoupment of expenses incurred in cleaning up an automobile accident caused environmental contamination were time barred by the failure to file the action within the one (1) year statute of limitations contained in section 3145(2) of the No-Fault Act.
This case arises out of an accident involving multiple motor vehicles, one of which was containing a liquid hazardous substance which spilled, causing environmental contamination. Plaintiff American International Group was the no-fault insurance carrier providing coverage on the vehicle which caused the spill, and pursuant to its policy, AIG paid in excess of one million dollars to remediate the resulting contamination. AIG subsequently sought pro rata recoupment of its costs from Liberty Mutual and State Farm, the insurers of the other vehicles allegedly involved in the accident. The accident in this case occurred on December 8, 1995, and plaintiff AIG filed suit on December 19, 1996. Both defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to the provisions of section 3145(2) of the No-Fault Act, which provides for a one (1) year statute of limitations applicable to the recovery of property protection insurance benefits.
In upholding the trial court's grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendants, the Court of Appeals rejected AIG's contention that the statute of limitations had been tolled by the giving of notice of the claim within the statutory one (1) year period.
In rejecting AIG's tolling argument, the Court of Appeals relied upon the previous decisions in USF&G v Amerisure, 195 Mich App 1 (1992) (Item No. 2014). In that decision, the Court of Appeals previously held that the provisions of section 3145(2) do not contain a tolling provision (unlike the provisions of 3145(1) which apply to personal protection insurance benefits). The Court of Appeals also addressed plaintiff AIG's argument that the language in USF&G was mere dicta. In the recent decision of Secura Insurance Company v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 232 Mich App 656 (1998), (Item No. 2024), the Court of Appeals affirmed that the holding in USF&G was that the statute of limitations under section 3145(2) was not tolled by the giving of notice letters.
