Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 324132; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Wilder, and Murray; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
On June 28, 2016, the Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal; Link to Order
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Resident Relatives [§3114(1)]
One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a self-funded transportation provider’s reimbursement claim for benefits it had paid was barred by MCL 500.3145(1), because the transportation provider filed its claim more than one year after the accident.
Willie Clay, Jr. was injured while riding a bus operated by plaintiff, Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART). SMART, a self-funded entity, paid Clay more than $127,000 in benefits. When Clay filed a negligence suit against SMART, it was discovered that Clay lived with his father, who owned a vehicle and had a no-fault policy through defendant Auto Club Insurance Association. SMART then brought this action against Auto Club, seeking reimbursement for the no-fault benefits it had paid to Clay. The trial court granted Auto Club’s motion for summary disposition, finding that SMART, as an insurer, failed to bring its claim within one year of the date of the accident, as required by §3145(1).
On appeal, SMART argued that the general six-year period of limitations in MCL 600.5813 governed the case, and not the one-year period in §3145(1).
The Court of Appeals rejected SMART’s argument that the six-year limitations period applied, finding there was no dispute that SMART was seeking reimbursement more than one year after the accident and that Auto Club had no notice of a claim. In this regard, the court said:
“[I]t is clear that none of the exceptions to the one-year limitations period applies, and because Clay Jr. could not have recovered no-fault benefits from defendant after this period, plaintiff’s claim against defendant was time-barred as well.”
The Court of Appeals further said that SMART’s reliance on Allen v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 210 Mich App 591 (1995), was misplaced, and rejected the argument that applying the one-year limitations period in §3145(1) would produce an “absurd and unjust” result. The court reasoned:
“Allen is distinguishable because it involved the statutory right of an assignee of the Assigned Claims Facility to reimbursement, and here, the claim involves one of subrogation between different priority insurers. Thus, Allen is inapposite. Notably, plaintiff, here tacitly admits that Allen is distinguishable when it relies on the general six-year statute of limitations of MCL 600.5813 instead of the specific two-year statute of limitations for assigned claims reimbursement under MCL 500.3175(3).”
In conclusion, the Court of Appeals held that SMART was seeking recovery under the doctrine of subrogation and, therefore, it stood in the shoes of Clay. As such, the court said:
“Accordingly, just as Clay Jr. could not ignore the one-year rule of MCL 500.3145(1) to recover from defendant, neither could plaintiff. Because it sought recovery against defendant over a year after the April 2011 accident, and none of the statutory exceptions of MCL 500.3145(1) apply, plaintiff’s claim was barred, and defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was appropriately granted.”
