Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 107639; Unpublished
Judges MacKenzie, Hood, and Gribbs; 2-1; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Required Content of Notice / Sufficiency of Notice [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a plaintiff who does not provide a no-fault insurance company with notice of a claim that states the nature of the injury suffered, has not complied with the notice requirements of §3145 of the statute, and therefore, cannot enforce payment of no-fault benefits.
In this case, the plaintiff (through his attorney) provided notice to plaintiff’s no-fault insurance company within three weeks after the accident, specifying the date of the accident and providing a copy of the police report. The notice also requested a no-fault application form which was then provided by the no-fault insurance company within three weeks of receiving the notice letter. However, the plaintiff did not complete the application, and did not provide any further information to the insurance company regarding the nature of the injuries until almost two years later, when plaintiff advised the insurance company that he was now being treated for a knee condition that was allegedly related to the automobile accident. In holding that plaintiff failed to give proper notice, the court stated:
"Plaintiff did not substantially comply with §3145(l)'s notice requirement Based on the notice given, plaintiff could have suffered anything from critical closed head injuries to a broken toe. In the absence of information regarding the nature of his injury, defendant was denied knowledge of the essential facts upon which its liability depended and therefore could not appropriate funds for settlement purposes."
The court also rejected the argument that plaintiff was not required to give notice of injury because the injury did not manifest itself until sometime after the accident. The court relied upon Kalata v Allstate (Item No. 762) and stated that a claim accrues at the time of the accident, rather than at the time of the injury. The court also held that defendant did not waive its claim of inadequate notice by merely sending a no-fault application form to plaintiff. Finally, the court rejected plaintiff's argument that defendant must show prejudice as a result of the inadequate notice.
