Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 65972; Published
Judges Brennan, Cynar, and Simon; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Submission of Claim [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Equitable Estoppel
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion is a continuation of the litigation summarized in item numbers 492 and 553. In item number 492, the Court of Appeals had previously rejected the Richards tolling rule as a means of avoiding the no-fault statute's one year statute of limitations contained in §3145 of the Act However, the Court remanded the case to determine whether or not the statute of limitations should be tolled by application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. In item number 553, the trial court did in fact find that an equitable estoppel existed, thereby tolling the statute of limitations.
This panel of the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the trial court's holding finding an equitable estoppel. The doctrine applied to the facts of this case because the defendant insurance company has employed settlement negotiations and other dilatory tactics to cause plaintiff to delay suit and that plaintiff did so to his detriment The court noted that there was continuous correspondence between plaintiff’s counsel and defendant's adjuster which, at one point, resulted in a settlement offer which was rejected. The plaintiff then filed suit less than two months after the defendant's final offer. The Court also rejected defendant's argument that the doctrine of equitable estoppel does not apply because the right of action for no-fault benefits is statutorily created and is conditioned upon its enforcement within the prescribed period. The Court stated the No-Fault Statute does not create a liability where none existed but rather provides for benefits without consideration of fault as a substitute for tort remedies which are in part abolished.
Finally, the Court rejected defendant's argument that plaintiff was precluded from asserting equitable estoppel because it had not been plead in the complaint The Court stated that the plaintiff is not required to anticipate an affirmative defense of the statute of limitations. In addition, plaintiff was not required to file a reply asserting the doctrine because the defendant's answer never demanded a reply. To the extent that the previous opinion in Bromley v Citizens (item number 495) holds to the contrary, this panel specifically chose not to follow it.
