Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 50203; Published
Judges Danhof, Gillis, and Holbrook; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 111 Mich App 617; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In a unanimous per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals gave a much clearer description of the one year statute of limitation provisions of §3145(1) and cleared up some confusion that apparently had existed in light of some prior Court of Appeals cases. This panel specifically rejected prior notions that "§3145(1) is a one year statute of limitations with a provision enabling claimants to extend the period for up to one additional year by giving notice." The Court held that the language of §3145 is clear and unambiguous. Under its terms, if notice has been properly given within one year of an accident, a lawsuit may be commenced at any time within one year of the most recent allowable expense. However, a one year back rule applies to such a suit, which provides that the claimant can only recover for those expenses which have been incurred within one year prior to the commencement of the litigation is s significantly different than saying that the giving of notice merely gives a claimant an additional one year within which to commerce litigation.
The Court also went on to analyze the question of "tolling" the statute of limitations and embraced the prior holding of the Court of Appeals in Aldrich v Auto-Owners (item number 403).
