Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 94100; Unpublished
Judges Hood, Maher, and Sullivan; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations for Mental Incompetence [§3145]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Death [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations (MCL 600.5851 – 600.5856)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam pinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's partial summary disposition ruling that plaintiff’s claims for no-fault benefits were barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in §3145(1).
Plaintiff’s daughter was involved in an automobile accident in 1976. She suffered a closed head injury requiring substantial medical, nursing and rehabilitation services. On February 11, 1984, plaintiff’s daughter died. Plaintiff had been appointed guardian for his daughter in 1976, and following her death, the guardianship estate was closed and a decedent's estate was opened.
The contested benefits consisted of a claim for unpaid dental expenses, and for construction of a therapy room to be added to the home of a third party who provided nursing/therapy services. The therapy room was constructed in 1982-1983, and the dental expenses were incurred in 1983.
Since suit has not commenced on these benefits until February 5, 1985, the trial court ruled that the one-year back provisions of §3145(1) precluded coverage.
On appeal, the Court reversed and held that both the mental incompetency and the death savings provisions contained in MCLA 600.5851 and §5852 operated to extend the statute of limitations.
The Court rejected the argument that appointment of a guardian for a mentally incapacitated person removed the disability for purposes of MCLA 600.5851. Nothing in this statute suggests a legislative intent that an insane person's exemption from the running of the statute of limitations is to end upon appointment of a guardian. Further, the court also erred in holding that the statute of limitations was not extended by the death savings provision.
