Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 77-1467; Published
Judges Riley, Cavanagh, and Hensick; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 86 Mich App 45; 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 a unanimous per curiam opinion closely paralleling Dolson v Assigned Claims Facility (item number 91) this panel held that §3145(1) of the no-fault statute is a one year statute of limitations rather than a notice provision. Therefore, since the plaintiff neither filed a complaint nor gave notice within the one-year period, plaintiff’s claim was barred.
In its Opinion, the Court made the statement that §3145(1) was a one year statute of limitations which always entitles a plaintiff to file suit within the one year regardless if notice is given during that time. However, the section includes a mechanism whereby the one year period is extended an additional one year when notice is filed during the first year. The Court termed this "an additional year's graces."
[Author's Comment: The Court's theory that the filing of notice within the first year gives a plaintiff "an additional year's graces" intimates that no PIP claim can ever be filed beyond two years. This has never been suggested by any other Court to this writer's knowledge. It seems to ignore the meaning of the second section of §3145(1) which suggests that if notice has been provided, a PIP claim can be filed anytime within one year of a claimant's most recent expense.]
