Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 45584; Published
Judges Danhof, Kelly, and Sullivan; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 106 Mich App 83; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations Upon Submission of Claim [§3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In a unanimous Opinion by Judge Kelly, this panel of the Court of Appeals repudiated the holding in Richards v American Fellowship (item number 101) that the one year statute of limitations contained in §3145(1) is tolled from the date an insured gives "notice of loss" until the date of formal denial of liability by the insurance company. This panel held that the statute of limitations language set forth in §3145(1) is clear and unambiguous and to depart from it or expand its scope "results in impermissible judicial legislation." The Court noted that one of the purposes of the one year statute of limitations is to encourage claimants to bring their no-fault claims to court while those claims are still fresh. If an insurance company unduly delays in processing a no-fault claim, the claimant should seek prompt judicial enforcement of said claim. The Court noted "there is no bar to the insured from seeking judicial enforcement of his claim and we have heard no argument in favor of a declaration of public policy to the effect that resort to the courts is an unacceptable or undesirable alternative." Therefore, in this case, that portion of the plaintiff’s claim which accrued more than one year prior to the date the lawsuit was commenced was barred by the limitation provisions of §3145(1).
[Author's Comment: A significant question is raised whether this case actually overrules the holding in Richards. The facts of Richards dealt with a demand for payment of a specific medical bill which had been submitted to the insurance company and which had been pending for a substantial period of time before it was actually denied. Even though the Richards Opinion speaks in terms of tolling the statute of limitations "from the day plaintiff gave notice of loss" it might more properly be read to provide a tolling of the statute of limitations from the date a specific demand for payment is made until that specific demand is rejected. That would be a much narrower tolling rule than one which provides for a tolling from the date notice of loss is given until liability is denied. Therefore, this opinion could be read to repudiate the latter tolling interpretation rather than the more limited one which focuses on a demand for the payment of a specific expense."
