Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #286204; Unpublished
Judges O’Connell, Talbot, and Stephens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Notice Rule Limitaiton [3145(1)]
Required Content of Notice/Sufficienty of Notice [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court Order granting defendant Home-Owners Insurance Company summary disposition in this action to recover PIP benefits, finding that notice provided for an uninsured/underinsured claim for motorist benefits was insufficient to satisfy the notice required under MCL 500.3145 for personal injury protection benefits.
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on February 21, 2005. The plaintiff was injured while standing outside the truck he was using as an employee of the City of Pontiac. At the time of the accident, plaintiff was helping his son when the vehicle his son was driving became disabled. Plaintiff was injured when another driver struck the son’s vehicle, pinning plaintiff between the son’s car and his truck. Michigan Municipal Risk Management Authority (MMRMA) insured plaintiff’s work vehicle, while Home-Owners insured plaintiff’s personally owned vehicles, and Citizens Insurance insured plaintiff’s son’s vehicle. On November 4, 2005, plaintiff’s attorney sent a letter to Auto-Owners stating that plaintiff might pursue an uninsured motorist claim against Home-Owners. On February 15, 2006, plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Home-Owners, Citizens, and MMRMA for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. Meanwhile, MMRMA had paid plaintiff’s PIP benefits, believing plaintiff had been inside the city-owned vehicle when the accident occurred. When MMRMA discovered that plaintiff was actually standing on the rear bumper of the vehicle, MMRMA filed a cross-claim against Citizens and Home-Owners seeking reimbursement from Home-Owners for no-fault PIP benefits and seeking a determination that it retain no liability to continue paying no-fault PIP benefits.
Home-Owners moved for summary disposition, claiming MMRMA’s notice was untimely under MCL 500.3145(1). The trial court agreed and granted Home-Owners summary disposition.
In affirming, the Court of Appeals noted that under §3145, an action for recovery of PIP benefits may not be commenced later than one year after the date of the accident unless written notice of the injury had been provided to the insurer within one year of the accident or the insurer had previously made payment of PIP benefits. The court rejected MMRMA’s argument that the statute required only a generic form of notice and that plaintiff’s letter stating his intent to file a complaint for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits comprised sufficient notice. Under Welton v Carriers Insurance Company, 421 Mich 571; 365 NW2d 170 (1984), overruled in part on other grounds Devillers v Auto Club Insurance Association, 473 Mich 562; 702 NW2d 539 (2005), the notice was insufficient because it was limited to a request for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. The failure to provide notice of the specific claim for PIP benefits precluded MMRMA from recovering the benefits it mistakenly paid. In this regard, the court stated:
“Although plaintiff filed his claim within the one-year limitations period it was limited to a request for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits. It was not until more than one year after the accident, on March 17, 2006, when MMRMA filed is [sic] cross-claim that Home-Owners received any form of notice of a claim for PIP benefits. Hence the notice requirement was not fulfilled. As stated previously in Welton v Carriers Ins Co, 421 Mich 571, 579-580; 365 NW2d 170 (1984), overruled in part on other grounds Devillers, supra at 562:
Until a specific claim is made, an insurer has no way of knowing what expenses have been incurred, whether those expenses are covered losses, and indeed, whether the insured will file a claim at all . . . . tolling would not begin until a claim for specific benefits is submitted to the insurer. [Emphasis added, footnotes omitted.]
As argued by Home-Owners and determined by the trial court, the failure to provide notice of a specific claim for PIP benefits until after the one-year time period required by MCL 500.3145(1) had lapsed, precludes MMRMA from recovery of mistakenly paid benefits.”
