Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #311339; Unpublished
Judges Sawyer, O’Connell, and K.F. Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s Order granting Allstate’s motion for summary disposition regarding the issue of whether the plaintiff, the injured person in this case, was barred from no-fault benefits because she failed to provide timely written notice to Allstate, as required by MCL 500.3145(1).
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a motor vehicle accident on October 1, 2009, when she was operating a vehicle that was owned by her friend. At the time of the accident, the plaintiff did not own a motor vehicle. Therefore, she attempted to recover no-fault insurance benefits from Allstate Insurance Company, the insurer of the other driver involved in the collision. On October 2, 2009, the plaintiff contacted Allstate via telephone, at which time a no-fault claim was opened under the other driver’s insurance policy. The plaintiff claimed that she received a letter from Allstate’s adjuster acknowledging that she had opened the plaintiff’s no-fault claim. Notably, this letter was read into the record at the summary disposition hearing at the trial court, but the actual letter was not produced. Furthermore, the plaintiff claimed she completed forms and submitted them to defendant, but no forms were produced during the litigation. Six months after the initial phone conversation, Allstate received a medical bill related to plaintiff’s injuries. A month later, plaintiff called Allstate and indicated that she may have no-fault insurance coverage under her son’s insurance policy with Progressive Insurance, as she was living with her son at the time of the accident. Sometime after making that call to Allstate, plaintiff learned her son’s insurance policy was cancelled at the time of the accident. No further contact was made with Allstate until April 26, 2011, at which time plaintiff’s attorney contacted Allstate to pursue benefits under the Allstate policy.
In affirming the trial court’s Order granting summary disposition to Allstate, the Court of Appeals reasoned that MCL 500.3145(1) unambiguously mandates that a no-fault claimant provide written notice of injury within one-year after the accident. Therefore, because there was no evidence that plaintiff provided Allstate written notice of her claim for no-fault benefits within one year from the date of the accident, she was forever barred from receiving no-fault benefits from Allstate. In this regard, the court stated:
“MCL 500.3145(1) is unambiguous: plaintiff’s action for recovery of personal protection benefits is barred unless she provides written notice of injury within one year after the accident. Here, there is no dispute that plaintiff failed to provide written notice of the accident to defendant, and mere oral notice is insufficient under the statute. See Kelly v Losinki, 92 Mich App 468, 471-473; 285 NW2d 334 (1979). Plaintiff relies on Walden v Auto Owners Ins Co, 105 Mich App 528; 307 NW2d 367 (1981) and Dozier v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 95 Mich App 121; 290 NW2d 408 (1980) in support of her position that oral notice is sufficient to satisfy the notice requirement of MCL 500.3145(1). However, Walden and Dozier are distinguishable, as each case involved some form of writing. Here, there is a complete lack of any writing. Plaintiff’s oral notice was insufficient to create a question of material fact regarding whether plaintiff complied with the written notice of the accident within the one year requirement of the statute.”
