Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 325319; Unpublished
Judges Owens, Borrello and Stephens; Unanimous, Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Required Content of Notice/Sufficiency of Notice [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held the notice of injury that plaintiff submitted to her no-fault insurer did not substantially comply with the provisions of MCL 500.3145(1) because it did not include plaintiff’s address, or the “time, place and nature of the injury.”
Plaintiff was injured in a car crash on May 23, 2013. Defendant Amerisure Insurance was plaintiff’s no-fault insurer. Plaintiff’s counsel sent Amerisure a March 31, 2014, letter asserting a claim for no-fault benefits. The letter included plaintiff’s name and the date of the accident, but did not include the accident location or a copy of the police report. The letter also did not provide plaintiff’s policy number or plaintiff’s address. Amerisure requested this missing information, but it was not provided. Amerisure ultimately denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits. Plaintiff then filed an action seeking coverage. The trial court granted Amerisure’s motion for summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that plaintiff’s notice of injury did not meet the requirements of §3145(1) because it did not include plaintiff’s address, or the “time, place and nature of the injury.”
In making this ruling, the Court of Appeals primarily relied on Perkovic v Zurich American Ins Co, 312 Mich App 244 (2015), and said:
“[T]he Perkovic Court concluded that where the purposes of MCL 500.3145(1) were not satisfied, the plaintiff had not provided sufficient notice of injury pursuant to the statute, and affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant. … Accordingly, although this Court has not historically required strict compliance with the plain language of the statute,… plaintiff’s notice of injury cannot be said to have substantially complied with the statute’s requirements, where it failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 500.3145(1). … In other words, plaintiff’s deficient notice of injury simply did not allow defendant an opportunity to properly investigate plaintiff’s claim or to manage funds for potential settlement purposes.”
The Court of Appeals further held that plaintiff’s reliance on Dozier v State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins Co, 95 Mich App 121 (1980), was misplaced because the facts in Dozier were distinguishable from this case. According to the Court, Dozier stood for the proposition that in order to substantially comply with §3145(1), an insurer must be put on notice of the need to investigate and determine potential liability. However, plaintiff in this case never put Amerisure on notice, the Court concluded. In this regard, the Court stated:
“In the instant case, defendant repeatedly sought more particulars to allow it to determine its liability, and eventually denied plaintiff’s claim because plaintiff was not forthcoming. Accordingly, a close review of Dozier reveals that it is not supportive of plaintiff’s argument.”
