Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #309647; Unpublished
Judges Hoekstra, Murray, and Riordan; 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 Estoppel [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam, Opinion the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant on his claim for personal protection insurance benefits consisting of charges for attendant care and case management services which were more than one-year prior to the date of commencement of this action, rejecting plaintiff’s claim that the insurance company was “equitably estopped” from asserting the application of the one-year-back rule under the circumstances of this case.
Plaintiff was injured in 1998 at the age of 17, with his injuries rendering him an incomplete quadriplegic. He filed a claim with ACIA and received no-fault benefits. In 2009, he claimed he was entitled to payment for family-provided attendant care and case management services, which had been incurred more than one-year prior to the commencement of his lawsuit. Defendant responded by asserting the provisions of MCL 500.3145(1), stating that the “one-year-back rule” of that statute limited plaintiff’s damages to those claims that were incurred for the year preceding his lawsuit. In upholding the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant ACIA, the Court of Appeals determined that the doctrine of “equitable estoppel” did not apply under the circumstances of this case.
Plaintiff claimed that the defendant undertook the duty to explain his benefits, but did so in an incomplete fashion and, therefore, equitable estoppel should apply. The Court of Appeals held that although the Supreme Court in Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562 (2005) acknowledged the equitable power of the court to avoid the effect of the one-year-back rule, the Court of Appeals held that the ability to exercise such power requires allegation of fraud, mutual mistake, or other “unusual circumstance” not present in the instant case. In this case, plaintiff sought legal advice from two different attorneys beginning as early as the year 2000. However, at the deposition of those attorneys, plaintiff asserted attorney-client privilege, precluding the defendant from fully exploring issues related to whether those attorneys advised plaintiff of his legal rights to attendant care benefits and case management services.
The Court of Appeals held that in the context of the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(1) plainly communicates the Legislature’s intent that damages should be limited, without reserve, to one year before the lawsuit was initiated. The court stated that while a trial court may invoke its equitable power, that narrow exception is not implicated in the instant case, as plaintiff asserted privilege and prevented defendant from obtaining information that could possibly preclude equity favoring plaintiff. Further, the court held that the alleged failure of the defendant to inform the plaintiff of the full panoply of benefits or to pay such benefits is hardly “an unusual circumstance” as required under Devillers for the court to exercise its equitable powers.
Accordingly, the grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant ACIA was affirmed.
