Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #281966; Unpublished
Judges Saad, Bandstra, and Hoekstra; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s Order granting defendant State Farm’s motion for JNOV in this action to recover personal injury protection benefits, finding that the trial court improperly granted the motion to apply the one-year-back rule under MCL 500.3145(1). Instead, the court explained, JNOV should only be granted when the evidence is insufficient to support a jury’s verdict, not when there is a perceived error in law.
The plaintiff in this case, Community Resource Consultants, provided rehabilitative and case management services to Wilma Judkins, who was injured in a motor vehicle accident on December 28, 2000. At the time of the accident, Judkins was insured by defendant State Farm. After State Farm failed to make payment for plaintiff’s services, plaintiff sued. In its answer to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant asserted the one-year-back rule as an affirmative defense. This case and 14 others in which plaintiff sought payment from defendant were consolidated. During trial, defendant moved for a directed verdict on plaintiff’s claims for payment of services rendered more than one year before the filing of its complaints. The trial court took the motion under advisement. After the jury returned the combined verdicts in the amount of $205,649.52, the trial court entered judgment in the amount of $431,502.25 which included costs, fees, and interest.
Defendant then moved for JNOV, arguing that the trial court improperly submitted plaintiff’s bills for services rendered more than one year before the filing of the complaint to the jury. The trial court agreed and granted the motion.
In reversing, the Court of Appeals noted that the trial court should grant a motion for JNOV only when the evidence viewed in a light most favorable to the non-moving party fails to establish a claim as a matter of law. It then noted that when State Farm moved for JNOV it did not claim that the evidence was sufficient to establish that plaintiff provided services worth $205,649.52 to State Farm’s insureds for injuries arising out of motor vehicle accidents. Therefore, the trial court improperly granted State Farm’s motion for JNOV in order to correct a perceived error in law. Moreover, the court explained that the one-year-back rule is an affirmative defense and was defendant’s burden to present evidence establishing the defense; plaintiff was under no obligation to limit its claims for payment for services rendered within one year of filing its complaints. In so ruling, the court stated:
“‘When deciding a motion for JNOV, the trial court must view the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and determine whether the facts presented preclude judgment for the nonmoving party as a matter of law.’ . . . A motion for JNOV should be granted only if the evidence viewed in this light fails to establish a claim as a matter of law.
In this case, the jury awarded plaintiff $205,649.52 for services rendered in 14 of the 15 cases. In moving for JNOV, defendant did not claim that the evidence presented to the jury, when viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff, was insufficient to establish that plaintiff provided services worth $205,649.52 to defendant’s insureds for injuries arising out of automobile accidents. . . . However, because there was no claim that the evidence submitted to the jury was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, and because the trial court made no such finding, the trial court used an improper basis for granting JNOV. In other words, the trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for JNOV because JNOV was not the proper method for the trial court to remedy its perceived legal error of failing to enforce the one-year-back rule. Any such error was an error of law, rather than an error in the sufficiency of the evidence.
Further, . . . a party asserting an affirmative defense has the burden of presenting evidence to establish the defense. . . .
Although the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(1), is not a statute of limitations, . . . the one-year-back rule is an affirmative defense. . . . Thus, even if an insured is able to establish a prima facie case for PIP benefits, the insurer may nonetheless establish that the insured is not entitled to all the claimed PIP benefits on the basis that the losses were incurred more than one year before the filing of the complaint. Because the one-year-back rule is an affirmative defense, plaintiff was under no obligation to limit its claims to losses incurred within one year before the filing of the complaints.”
