Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 55648; Published
Judges Bronson, T. M. Bums, and Corden; (with Bronson Concurring in Part and Dissenting in Part)
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 114 Mich App 814; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Required Content of Notice / Sufficiency of Notice [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Submission of Claim [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this lengthy Opinion by Judge Corden, another panel of the Court of Appeals grappled with the issue of tolling the no-fault one year statute of limitations contained in §3145 of the Act The Court made the following holdings regarding the statute of limitation provisions:
1. The majority accepted the so-called "minority position" stated in Richards v American Fellowship (item number 101) that the running of the one year statute of limitations was tolled from the date notice was given to the no-fault insurance company until liability was formally denied by the insurer.
2. "Substantial compliance" with the written notice provisions of §3145 was sufficient in the unusual facts of this case where the no-fault insurer had received actual notice from the plaintiff hospital that two people covered under the insurer's policy had been injured in an accident and received medical treatment at the hospital. The injured persons themselves never gave formal written notice to the no-fault insurer. Acknowledging that "it is a rare case where the injured persons do not seek recovery for their injuries," the Court felt it would be unfair to require strict adherence to the written notice requirements where the insurer has actual knowledge of all of the necessary notice elements.
3. The notice was not fatally deficient where it only contained the name of one injured person as opposed to the identity of both victims. In addition to receiving oral notice from the hospital, the insurer had received written notification from the insurance agent who sold the policy. Even though the written notice contained only the name of one of the injured persons, it described the time and place of the accident and "was sufficient to provide time for the defendant to investigate the accident" The insurer was later appraised of the second victim's injuries through subsequent conversations with the hospital.
Judge Bronson concurred in the result but dissented from the majority's conclusion that the Richards tolling rule should be a viable way to suspend the statute of limitations. Judge Bronson reaffirmed the position that he previously took regarding this issue in his opinion in English v Home Insurance Company (item number 492). However, Judge Bronson would vote to reverse the trial court's summary judgment on the question of the statute of limitations and would permit the plaintiff hospital to establish its claim of equitable estoppel and waiver of the statute of limitations.
[Author's Comment: In reaching its conclusion in this case, the majority made an observation regarding the operation of the one year statute of limitations which seems to resurrect some confusion which appeared in earlier cases. Specifically, the majority commented that under §3145 a "claimant can extend the one year statute of limitations period for up to one additional year by giving notice." This notion of "an extension of one year" was soundly repudiated by another panel of the Court of Appeals in Allstate v Frankenmuth Mutual (item number 464). In that case, the Court correctly noted that §3145 provides that if notice has been properly given within one year of an accident, a lawsuit may be commenced at any time within one year of the most recent allowable expense. However, a one year back rule applies to such a suit which precludes recovery of any expense incurred more than one year prior to filing a law-suit. It is suggested that this is the correct reading of §3145 and any reference to "an extension of one year is inaccurate.]
