Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.

   

Niksa and Ross v Commercial Union; (COA-PUB, 8/23/1985; RB #873)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 75267; Published  
Judges Gribbs, Holbrook, Jr., and Lambros; Unanimous; Per Curiam  
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 147 Mich App 124; Link to Opinion alt   


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 unanimous per curiam Opinion dealing with the one-year statute of limitations provision in §3145(1), the court held that plaintiffs who never made any specific claim for no-fault benefits were precluded by the Supreme Court's decision in Welton v Carriers (Item No. 801) from claiming benefit of the tolling rule set forth in Richards v American Fellowship (Item No. 101). Furthermore, the court stated that alleged statements made by a workers' compensation claims adjuster to the effect that no benefits were available other than workers' compensation benefits, where such statements were made prior to the Supreme Court's decision in Mathis v Interstate, were not sufficient to support a claim that the statute of limitations was tolled by misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment on the part of defendant.

 


Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit SinasDramis.com.

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)

FacebookInstagram