Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 55837; Published
Judges Danhof, Bronson, and Ernst; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 120 Mich App 269; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Equitable Estoppel
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
This unanimous per curiam Opinion dealt with two issues regarding the statute of limitation provisions set forth in §3145 of the Act. First, the Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the six year statute of limitations for breach of contract actions applies to suits for no-fault benefits. The Court held that §3145 of the Act sets forth both a statute of limitations and a recovery limitation. This section applies regardless of whether the dispute is over the "existence" of a loss as opposed to a dispute over the amount of the loss.
Second, the Court rejected plaintiff’s contention that the one year statute of limitations was tolled in this case because of the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The Court noted that the plaintiff did not plead equitable estoppel in the Complaint or in any subsequent pleading thereafter. Furthermore, a review of the facts indicate that plaintiff's decision to file this lawsuit over two years after defendant terminated his wage loss benefits was the product of nothing more than plaintiff’s ill-advised decision to resolve their dispute through the Michigan Insurance Bureau rather than by litigation. In commenting on the parameters of the estoppel doctrine as it applies to tolling the statute of limitations, the Court stated:
"A plaintiff who relies upon an estoppel theory to avoid a statute of limitations defense must show 'that the conduct of the defendant has induced the plaintiff to refrain from bringing action within the period fixed by statute, and that such conduct should estop the defendant'. . . . Actions by a defendant relevant to establishing estoppel include concealment of a cause of action, misrepresentation as to the statutory time in which an action may be brought, and inducement not to bring the action A promise to pay or settle a claim, special knowledge on the part of the defendant, and fiduciary relationship are all factors to consider."
The Court went on to say that even if the doctrine of equitable estoppel properly applied to the facts of this case, it would only toll the statute of limitations for a one year period following the termination of the estoppel. In so holding, the Court stated, “The legislature having determined one year to be a reasonable and appropriate period for bringing this type of action, plaintiffs are deemed to have a like period following termination of the estoppel within which to bring action."
