Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 119978; Unpublished
Judges Kelly, Jansen, and T. J. Lesinski, on rehearing; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Submission of Claim [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Equitable Estoppel
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals, on rehearing of its prior decision (Item No. 1551), adopted the dissent of Judge Jansen, and determined that a letter which the insurance company claimed constituted a formal denial of no-fault benefits was ambiguous and did not sufficiently state in a direct fashion that the no-fault benefits claimed were being denied. Thus, the court felt it was inappropriate for the trial court to construe this letter as a matter of law as being a denial and thereby allowing for the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim on the basis of the one year statute of limitations contained in §3145(1) of the no-fault act.
On rehearing, the court adopted the views of Judge Jansen expressed in her dissenting opinion in the original decision of the Court of Appeals. Judge Jansen felt that the letter by Allstate purportedly denying no-fault benefits was ambiguous, and therefore did not constitute a formal denial of liability which then would have triggered the running of the statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals, on rehearing, also found that it was improper for the trial court to have concluded that the letter did constitute a sufficient denial "based on counsel's presumed expertise in the field of no-fault insurance." The Court of Appeals reiterated that it is incumbent upon an insurer to formally and explicitly deny liability in a sufficiently direct manner so as to apprise a claimant that his or her claim is being formally denied. This is so, irrespective of the claimant's attorney's experience or expertise in the field of no-fault insurance.
The court therefore vacated its previously filed opinion to the extent that it concluded that the letter constituted an unambiguous, formal denial of plaintiff’s claim.
