Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 154660; Unpublished
Judges Brennan, Corrigan, and Anderson; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations for Mental Incompetence [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations (MCL 600.5851 – 600.5856)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion involving a first-party benefits case, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's grant of summary disposition to defendant, based upon a statute of limitations defense. In upholding the trial court's order, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff had not raised a fact question as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled by reason of insanity, despite an affidavit of plaintiffs expert, attesting to plaintiffs impairment.
Plaintiff was a passenger on a motorcycle that was struck by an uninsured automobile on September 9, 1977. In January of 1992, plaintiff filed a claim with the Assigned Claims Facility which was denied as untimely. When plaintiff filed suit in circuit court, defendant moved for summary disposition on the grounds that plaintiffs claim was barred by the one year statute of limitations of §3145 of the no-fault act.
Plaintiff contended that the one year statute of limitations had been tolled by an insanity disability resulting from the injuries sustained in the accident. In support, plaintiff submitted an affidavit from a neuropsychologist who performed an assessment of plaintiff in May of 1992 for litigation purposes. The expert found that plaintiff suffered cognitive residuals "which clearly interfere with his ability to understand his medical needs and legal rights." In response, defendant presented to the court the records of five of plaintiff’s medical providers who treated him from September 1977 through February 1978, each of whom had concluded that plaintiff had recovered from his injuries by February 1978, at the latest.
The court found that the general savings provision regarding statute of limitations (MCLA 600.5851) is applicable to no-fault first party actions. However, the Court of Appeals noted that there is a split of authority on whether the opinion of a mental health professional suffices to raise a question of fact when the plaintiff asserts insanity in response to a statute of limitations defense. In this case, the Court of Appeals followed a previous published decision of the court, Hooper v Hill, Lewis, 191 Mich App 312 (1991), holding that even where an affidavit from a treating physician supports an insanity defense, summary disposition may be properly granted where the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that such a disability did not exist. Accordingly, the trial court's grant of summary disposition was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
