Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 51360; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Bronson, and Thomas; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 117 Mich App 270; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Nature and Scope of PPI Benefits (Property Damage and Loss of Use) [§3121(1)]
Proper Defendant [§3121]
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 Opinion by Judge Bronson, the Court agreed with the panel which decided the case of Home Insurance Company v Rosquin (item number 203) and disagreed with the panel which decided Totzkay v DuBois (item number 438), and concluded that in an action for property protection benefits, the insurance company and not the named insured is the proper party defendant in the action. The prohibition in MCLA 500.3030 against the mentioning of any insurance coverage is inapplicable to actions seeking economic loss damages under the No-Fault Act.
The Court then went on to analyze whether or not the trial court correctly denied plaintiff’s motion to add the insurance company defendants on the basis that the one year statute of limitations in §3145 had expired. The Court of Appeals ruled that under the unique circumstances in this case, the statute of limitations defense was not a valid reason to add the insured defendant. The court noted that the insurance company was immediately notified of the loss and had negotiated with plaintiff’s counsel. In addition, the insurer had retained the same law firm which had been retained by the named insured after suit was filed against him individually. Thus, the insurance company not only had actual knowledge of the pendency of the suit, but it "actually controlled the defense of this action." Thus, the policy behind the statute of limitations to foreclose the filing of stale claims is inapplicable to this case.
Finally, the Court held that even though the complaint in artfully and unnecessarily made allegations of negligence, a valid cause of action for property protection insurance was stated by virtue of the fact that the complaint alleged that damages to property were caused by the operation of the insured's vehicle. Clearly there would be no liability in negligence for the property damage.
