Attorney General Frank Kelley
December 1,1981
MTLA File No. 2562
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Work Loss Benefits: Nature of The Benefit [§3107(1)(b)]
Work Loss Benefits: Calculation of Benefits [§3107(1)(b)]
Replacement Service Expense Benefits: Nature of The Benefit [§3107(1)(c)]
Disqualification for Nonresidents [§3113(c)]
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
When Claimants Can Receive PIP Benefits Through the Assigned Claims Facility [§3172(1)]
PIP Insurer’s Right to Reimbursement for Claims Paid Arising Out of Uninsured Vehicle Injuries [§3177(1)]
Sanctions Applicable Against Uninsured Debtors [§3177(2), (3)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In an Opinion regarding several questions related to the administration of the Assigned Claims Facility, Attorney General Frank Kelley gave the following opinions:
First, pursuant to the opinion in Pries v Travelers (item numbers 111 and 310) the maximum monthly work loss benefits under §3107(b) do not include the $20 per day allowance for replacement service expenses and, thus, the two claims must be considered separately.
Second, in interpreting the statute of limitation provision of §3145(1) the Attorney General ruled that a claimant may bring an action against an insurer within one year from the date of the accident unless notice of injury has been given to the insurer or payment of benefits for the injury has been made by the insurer. If notice of injury has been given or payment of benefits received, then a claimant has one year from the date that the particular expense was incurred in which to commence an action against the insurer, plus whatever period of delay incurred on the part of the insurer in denying liability. Thus, the Attorney General specifically held that the tolling rule enunciated in Richards v American Fellowship (item number 101) gave proper effect to the "purpose of the Act as a whole." Thus, its rationale is preferable to the holding in Aldrich v Auto-Owners (item number 403). The Richards tolling rule was also applied to claims process through the Assigned Claims Facility. Thus, a claimant who had given proper notice within one year of an accident would have not only one year from the date the claimed expense was incurred to file suit, but also would have an additional "amount of time that an insurer or the Facility has that particular claim in possession before giving notice of formal denial of liability."
Third, the statutory term "loss adjustment cost incurred" pertaining to assigned claims includes the costs incurred by an insurer in litigating a suit against the uninsured motorist and, thus, may be recovered from the owner or registrant of the uninsured motor vehicle which created the need for the assigned claim.
Fourth, the failure of the owner or registrant of an uninsured motor vehicle to make payment of a judgment obtained by an assigned claims insurer within 30 days after its entry may result in suspension or revocation, without further hearing, of the license and registration of such owner or registrant.
Fifth, a nonresident of Michigan who was riding as a passenger in an uninsured vehicle registered in the State of Michigan may recover benefits from the Assigned Claims Facility as a result of an accident occurring in Michigan. Section 3113 excludes only nonresidents who are occupants of motor vehicles not registered in Michigan where the vehicle was not insured by a §3163 insurer. Thus, because they are not specifically excluded, nonresident occupants of Michigan uninsured vehicles can claim benefits from the Assigned Claims Facility. The same result would apply to pedestrians who are nonresidents of Michigan and are injured as a result of accidents involving uninsured vehicles registered in Michigan.
