Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325089; Unpublished
Judges Servitto, Saad, and O’Brien; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiff did not comply with the notice requirements in MCL 500.3145(1) because the notice he provided within one year of the accident was not in writing. As a result, the court held that the trial court properly granted summary disposition for defendant-insurer.
Plaintiff in this case injured his leg on March 31, 2012, while entering a vehicle. He did not have a no-fault policy and, because he lived with his father, he sought coverage under his father’s policy with defendant Auto Club. After several phone calls between plaintiff and Auto Club, Auto Club’s adjuster provided claim forms to plaintiff on March 7, 2013. However, the forms were never completed and returned. Plaintiff then filed this action on July 23, 2013, seeking benefits. Auto Club moved for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiff’s suit was filed more than one year after the accident and that it never received any written notice, contrary to §3145(1). Plaintiff, however, argued he substantially complied with §3145(1) by providing verbal notice to Auto Club and, therefore, Auto Club was equitably stopped from arguing that written notice was required. The trial court denied Auto Club’s motion for summary disposition, finding that questions existed about whether plaintiff substantially complied with §3145(1), and whether Auto Club was equitably estopped from asserting a right to written notice.
The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that plaintiff’s claim was barred by §3145(1) because written notice was not provided to defendant within one year of the accident. In this regard, the court said:
“We agree that plaintiff failed to provide the required written notice within one year. … Substantial compliance exists where the notice ‘does in fact apprise the insurer of the need to investigate and to determine the amount of possible liability of the insurer’s fund.’ …The notice ‘must be specific enough to inform the insurer of the nature of the loss. It must give sufficient information that the insurer knows or has reason to know that there has been a compensable loss.’”
The Court of Appeals emphasized that plaintiff only provided verbal notice to Auto Club, and that verbal notice alone is never enough to fulfill §3145(1). In so finding, the court said this case was distinguishable from other cases allowing substantial compliance with §3145(1) because these other cases had “some writing” that had been provided to the insurer. However, in this case:
“it is undisputed that plaintiff did not provide any written notice to defendant. As such, plaintiff’s claim was in violation of the clear and unambiguous requirement of MCL 500.3145(1).”
Regarding whether Auto Club was estopped from asserting that written notice had to be provided, the Court of Appeals said:
“[T]he correspondence indicates that defendant was lacking sufficient information to open a claim. These actions … do not exhibit negligent or intentional inducement required for equitable estoppel.”
In light of the foregoing, the Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff’s suit was barred by §3145(1) and summary disposition should have been granted for Auto Club.
