Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 43537; Published
Judges Allen, Kelly, and Lambros; Unanimous
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 95 Mich App 121; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Required Content of Notice / Sufficiency of Notice [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In an Opinion by Judge Allen the Court of Appeals held that a letter by plaintiff’s attorney to defendant insurance company three weeks after an accident advising the insurance company of the date of the accident and the fact that plaintiff had been injured was sufficient notice under §3145(1) to toll the statute of limitations. Defendant insurance company acknowledged receipt of this letter approximately nine months after it was sent and requested plaintiff’s counsel to "please forward all specials you have in your file regarding this loss." Nothing specific was mentioned about first-party no-fault benefits. However, defendant State Farm was the insurer of the tortfeasor. It was under that insurance policy that plaintiff was claiming no-fault benefits because plaintiff did not have a policy of no-fault coverage or reside in a household where such coverage was available.
The Court noted that the notice provisions of §3145(1) require certain specific information to be conveyed to the first party insurer. However, the Court concluded that "substantial compliance with the written notice provision which does in fact appraise the insurer of the need to investigate and to determine the amount of possible liability of the insurer's fund is sufficient compliance under §3145." Certainly, the plaintiff’s letter operated to inform the defendant of the accident out of which the alleged injuries arose.
However, the Court seemed to base its decision upon another analysis. The Court felt that in light of the defendant's acknowledgement letter and the request to "forward all specials," the defendant had "waived its right to assert the insufficiency of the notice." The Court concluded, "While we do not conclude that defendant must establish prejudice in order to require strict enforcement of the notice provision, we note that all of the purposes for which statutory notice is intended, have been either met or waived in the instant case."
Judge Kelly concurred in the result but felt that the decision should not be based on a "waiver analysis." Judge Kelly wrote, "I believe the rule should be that an insurance company who has notice of a given claim on a given policy as evidenced by State Farm's March 9,1977 letter of acknowledgement, should not be able to disclaim notice for PIP benefits while negotiating, adjusting, reserving or denying benefits of the same policy arising out of the same accident for the same claimant for third party benefits." Judge Kelly contended that a waiver analysis should not be employed as this might encourage insurance companies to postpone acknowledgement of claim, thereby promoting litigation.
