Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 140866; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Shepherd, and Fitzgerald; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Private Contract (Meaning and Intent)
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Notice and Statute of Limitations for Uninsured Motorist Coverage
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Arbitration of Uninsured Motorist Claims
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals denied plaintiff's claim for uninsured motorist benefits on the grounds that her demand for arbitration was untimely in that it was more than three years from the date of the accident and therefore not timely within the requirements of the insurance policy.
Plaintiff was injured when the automobile she was driving was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by Terry Alick. Defendant Auto Club paid plaintiff's no-fault benefits until those benefits were discontinued. An action was commenced to resume those benefits, and that action was concluded by way of a release. Subsequently, plaintiff filed an action against Alick who negligently caused the accident. Alick was served by substitute process and a default judgment was entered against him. Plaintiff determined that there was no insurance and therefore made a claim for uninsured motorist benefits more than five years following the accident. Auto Club Insurance Association denied plaintiff's claim on the grounds that she had not timely filed her arbitration demand within the three year limitation set forth in the insurance policy.
At trial plaintiff contended that the three year limitation was unreasonable and should be tolled until it is determined that the tortfeasor is uninsured. Plaintiff urged the adoption of a "discovery rule" of accrual for a cause of action under an uninsured motorist policy.
The Court of Appeals held that this argument had been rejected in Sallee v Auto Club Insurance Association, 190 Mich App 305 (1991). Uninsured motorist coverage is not required by the no-fault act, and its availability is governed by the contract between the parties. The express terms of the contract specifically state that the claims period begins to run from the date of the accident. Therefore, plaintiff's claim was untimely.
