Wayne County Circuit Court; Docket No. 78-836-662-CK; Unpublished
Judge Thomas Roumell; __________
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Entitlement to PIP Benefits: Arising Out of / Causation Requirement [§3105(1)]
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Required Content of Notice / Sufficiency of Notice [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Submission of Claim [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Workers Disability Compensation Act (MCL 418.1, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
Plaintiff in this case was a bus driver for the Ann Arbor Transit Authority. She claimed no-fault benefits as a result of back injuries sustained by her over a period of time as a result of inadequate seating equipment on the bus that she drove for her employer for approximately five years. Plaintiff sought and received workers' compensation benefits for her injury and subsequently demanded payment of no-fault benefits. The workers' comp carrier and the no-fault carrier were the same insurance company. In a lengthy written opinion, Wayne County Circuit Judge Thomas Roumell made the following rulings:
1. In light of the fact that the workers' comp insurer and the no-fault insurer were one and the same, an employee's report of injury sent to the insurer for workers' compensation purposes was sufficient notice under §3145 of the no-fault statute to put the no-fault carrier on notice of the claim for no-fault benefits. In this respect, Judge Roumell held, "The report was filed directly with Michigan Mutual Insurance Company within one year of July 16, 1976. While the notice was directed to Michigan Mutual Insurance Company as the workers' disability carrier of Ann Arbor Transit Authority, the Court finds that the involvement of a motor vehicle with plaintiff’s injuries, as described in the Employee's Report, was sufficient to place Michigan Mutual on notice to investigate the source of die injuries and possible insurer liability under its no-fault insurance contract with Ann Arbor Transit Authority."
2. Once this written notice was timely filed within the one year no-fault statute of limitations, the limitations period was tolled until the no-fault-insurer formally denied liability of the no-fault claim. Judge Roumell based this portion of his opinion on the rule stated in Richards v American Fellowship, item number 101.
3. Plaintiff pled a claim for benefits which is cognizable under the no-fault statute, in spite of the fact that plaintiff was not involved in a traditional "automobile accident" Judge Roumell held, "The language used by the legislature in §3105 of the No-Fault Insurance Act has a broad and comprehensive application and affords coverage for injuries bearing almost any causal relation with a Vehicle, which need not amount to proximate cause for coverage to follow, but only some minimal causal connection. The purpose of the No-Fault Insurance Act, therefore, is to provide recovery for injuries arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, analogous to minor common law tort actions. And there need not be an 'accident' as a prerequisite to recovery of personal protection insurance benefits. The elements which must be alleged then, in a claim for personal protection insurance benefits, are (1) accidental (2) bodily injury (3) arising out of the ownership, operation, maintenance or use of (4) a motor vehicle."
