Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 97219; Published
Judges Walsh, Shepherd and Davis; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 166 Mich App 133; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Required Content of Notice / Sufficiency of Notice [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous decision by Judge Walsh, the Court of Appeals held that the one-year statute of limitations contained in §3145(1) was satisfied by the filing of a claim for workers' compensation benefits within one year after the accident
In this important decision, the Court held that the earlier decision in Spayde v Advanced Foam Systems, Inc (Item No. 645) did not reflect proper analysis of §3145(1), and in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Welton v Carriers Insurance (Item No. 801) held that the filing of a workers' compensation claim was sufficient notice to toll the one-year statute of limitations.
The injury occurred on July 1,1983, when plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident while operating a vehicle owned by his employer. Plaintiff was insured for no-fault benefits under his own automobile insurance policy with State Farm, and his employer was insured for both automobile no-fault and workers' compensation benefits by INA/Aetna. Plaintiff applied for and received workers' compensation benefits from INA/Aetna. The employer's basic report of injury submitted to INA/Aetna contained all of the information required by §3145(1), and specifically noted that plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident while working. Plaintiff then applied for and received no-fault benefits from his personal automobile insurance policy. Subsequently, State Farm determined that it had inadvertently paid no-fault benefits and that the priority provisions of §3114(3) obligated the employer's no-fault insurer to pay these benefits. When plaintiff commenced action against State Farm and INA/Aetna, State Farm argued the priority provisions and INA/Aetna contended that the one-year statute of limitations had expired prior to commencement of the action the trial court ruled that State Farm was stopped from denying plaintiff’s benefits. The court also ruled that the claim against INA/Aetna was barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in §3145(1). State Farm and plaintiff then settled their dispute, and State Farm, by assignment, continued the appeal against INA/Aetna the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded.
In distinguishing the Spayde, supra, decision, the Court of Appeals noted that the decision of Welton, supra, clarified the two limitations on time of suit and one limitation on period of recovery contained in §3145(1). Specifically, that section requires commencement of suit not later than one year after the date of the accident unless the insured (1) gives written notice of injury or (2) the insurer previously paid PPI benefits for the injury. Compliance with either of these two limitations on time allows recovery of benefits so long as they are within the one year back rule.
Quoting from Justice Levin's separate opinion in Welton, supra, the court noted that a workers' compensation insurer also providing the employer with no-fault coverage knows that it is under a legal obligation to pay the injured worker no-fault benefits, and, having processed the workers' compensation claim, cannot assert it does not have all the relevant information. Therefore, the plaintiff’s action against INA/Aetna for no-fault benefits was not barred by the one year statute of limitations. The matter was remanded for determination as to the application of the "one year back rule."
