Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 166824; Published
Judges Neff, Sawyer, and Markey; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 210 Mich App 591; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
When Claimants Can Receive PIP Benefits Through the Assigned Claims Facility [§3172(1)]
Time Limitations Applicable to Enforcing Indemnity or Reimbursement Rights Against Third Parties [§3175(3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Neff, the Court of Appeals held that where an insurance company pays no-fault benefits pursuant to assignment by the Assigned Claims Facility, and seeks reimbursement from a higher priority insurer, the two year statute of limitations contained in §3175(3) applies to that action, and the action is not time barred by the one year statute of limitations contained in §3145(1).
In this case, plaintiff Allen was injured when the car in which he was a passenger was involved in an accident Because plaintiff could not identify the insurer responsible for paying no-fault benefits for his injuries, he filed a claim for personal protection insurance benefits under the no-fault act with Farm Bureau as the assignee of the Assigned Claims Facility.
Farm Bureau paid plaintiffs medical claims, but denied plaintiffs claim for wage loss benefits. As a result, plaintiff Allen initiated this suit one year after his accident seeking wage loss benefits. During the course of discovery, Farm Bureau discovered that the driver of the car in which plaintiff was injured was covered by a policy issued by Farmers, and thus, Farmers was the proper insurer to pay no-fault benefits. Accordingly, Farm Bureau initiated a "third party suit" against Farmers for reimbursement of the medical benefits it paid to plaintiff. Farm Bureau's suit was likewise filed more than one year after plaintiffs accident. Shortly thereafter, plaintiff Allen amended his complaint to add Farmers as a defendant in his action seeking wage loss benefits.
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Farm Bureau, finding that Farmers was a higher priority insurer and that any sums paid by Farm Bureau to plaintiff were the responsibility of Farmers. No appeal was taken from this ruling.
Farmers likewise filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that Farm Bureau and plaintiff Allen's suits were time barred by §3145(1) of the no-fault act, which establishes a one year statute of limitations on recovery of PIP benefits. The trial court agreed with Farmers' motion with respect to plaintiffs claim, and plaintiff appealed. The trial court, however, denied Farmers' motion as to Farm Bureau, concluding that the two year statute of limitations contained in §3175(3) governing actions for indemnity or reimbursement, applied to Farm Bureau's claim, not the one year statute contained in §3145(1).
The Court of Appeals, in holding that Farm Bureau's suit was not time barred by the provisions of §3145(1), rejected Farmers' argument that Farm Bureau was a "subrogee" of plaintiff, and therefore, stood in plaintiffs shoes and was limited by the same one year limitation applicable to plaintiff. The Court of Appeals held that the one year limitation in §3145(1) did not apply to Farm Bureau's claim for reimbursement, because that claim was governed by the provisions of §3172(1) which grants an insurer the right to claim reimbursement from defaulting insurers to the extent of their financial responsibility. Since Farm Bureau had statutorily created rights of reimbursement, those rights were governed by the two year limitation applicable to indemnity and reimbursement claims as set forth in §3175(3).
With regard to plaintiff Allen's appeal of dismissal of his claim for wage loss benefits based upon the one year statute of limitations, the Court of Appeals held that the one year statute of limitations set forth in §3145(1) was not tolled where, as here, the injured party filed a claim through the Assigned Claims Plan of the No-Fault Act within the one year time period, but failed to notify the higher priority insurer within the limitation period. Although holding that plaintiffs claim was time barred by §3145(1), the court noted that plaintiff did not argue that Farm Bureau, as assignee under the Assigned Claims Plan was required to pay his wage loss benefits, to the extent they were justified, and then seek reimbursement from Farmers. Had plaintiff done so, a different result may have obtained. Therefore, the trial court's ruling that plaintiffs claim against Farmers Was barred by the one year statute of limitations was upheld.
