Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 56877; Published
Judges MacKenzie, Maher, and Simon; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 123 Mich App 175; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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 per curiam Opinion, the Court made the following rulings regarding the statute of limitation provisions of §3145(1).
First, on the basis of Davis v Farmers Insurance Group (item number 113), the Court rejected the argument that §3145(1) is a notice provision rather than a statute of limitations and, accordingly, a claim should not be dismissed absent a snowing of prejudice to the insurer through lack of notice.
Second, the Court rejected the argument that plaintiff had complied with the notice provision by giving notice to his employer, the defendant's insured, within the one year period. The plaintiff argued that such notice was valid because the statute allows notice to be given "to the insurer or any of its authorized agents" However, in rejecting this argument, the Court noted there was a total of any facts indicating that there was any implied agency which existed between plaintiff’s employer and the defendant insurer. The Court stated that for an implied agency to be demonstrated, there must be "an agency in fact" that in some way springs from acts and circumstances which were within the control of the principal.
Third, the Court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the one year notice period does not begin to run until the date plaintiff becomes physically disabled. The Court said the language of §3145(1) is specific and states that the one year period begins to run from the date of the accident. Therefore, plaintiff could not claim a longer notice period on the basis that his disability did not completely mature until six months after his accident
