Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 53631; Published
Judges Maher, R. B. Burns, and Kelly; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 124 Mich App 459; Link to Opinion 
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, the Court of Appeals strictly construed the notice provisions of §3145(1) of the Act so as to require that written notice of a potential claim for no-fault benefits "should be presented in a form, or under circumstances, designed to in fact appraise the insurer of the need to investigate and to determine the amount of possible liability of the insurer's fund."
In this particular case, plaintiff’s decedent died because of carbon monoxide inhalation while he was operating his vehicle. Plaintiff (decedent's widow) advised defendant's insurance agent about her husband's death several months after it had occurred but communicated this information for purposes of having her name placed on the insurance policy. Subsequently, plaintiff presented a copy of the death certificate to defendant's agent for purposes of having the agent prepare plaintiff’s income tax returns which the agent did as part of his business. At no time did plaintiff specifically discuss or make any inquiries with respect to the availability of no-fault benefits.
After the one year statute of limitations had run, plaintiff argued that the death certificate should be construed as adequate notice under §3141 to toll the one year statute of limitations. The Court of Appeals unanimously rejected this contention. The panel held that although the death certificate included all of the requisite information required by statute (i.e., the name and address of the claimant, the name of the person injured, and the time, place, and nature of the injury), it was defective as a notice device because "a death certificate is not an instrument which puts an insurer on notice of a potential claim." The Court went on to say that the death certificate "was not presented to [the agent] under circumstances indicating that a claim in connection with the death might be asserted. [The Agent] was preparing plaintiff’s tax return. No discussions concerning the policy were held at this time or any other time.”
The Court distinguished a previous decision in Dozier v State Farm (item number 268) on the basis that in Dozier, even though the written notice was technically deficient, it fulfilled the purposes of the limitations and notice provisions of the statute by apprising the insurer of the need to investigate a potential claim.
