Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #289602; Unpublished
Judges Stephens, Cavanagh, and Owens; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Underinsured Motorist Coverage
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals determined that the trial court improperly refused to enforce an unambiguous, uninsured motorist claim of which defendant was provided written notice within one year of the accident by way of the plaintiff’s application for first-party benefits.
The plaintiff in this case was injured in a motor vehicle accident involving an underinsured motorist. Although his claim for first-party benefits was timely, he did not separately notify defendant Farm Bureau of his underinsured motorist claim until more than one year after the accident. Defendant denied his claim based on language requiring notice within one year after the accident. Plaintiff sued after defendant denied his request for benefits and the trial court found, based on Northwest Acceptance Corp v Almont Gravel, Inc., 162 Mich App 294; 412 NW2d 719 (1987), that the one year limit was unconscionable due to the uneven bargaining power between the parties and because the plaintiff had no other realistic alternative for no-fault insurance.
In reversing, the Court of Appeals held that the trial court improperly refused to enforce the unambiguous contract language. According to the court, the facts of this case are identical to those in McGraw v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 274 Mich App 298; 731 NW2d 805 (2007), where an identical one-year provision was upheld. Under the express terms of this policy, the court determined that if plaintiff had complied with the notice provision, the one-year limit on bringing suit would not have applied. Therefore, the court determined that the trial court’s conclusion that compliance with the policy was impossible and that the contract was illusory was improper. The court further stated that there was no showing that plaintiff would have been unable to provide proper notice within one year. In this regard, the court stated:
“The trial court erred in not enforcing the unambiguous language of the contract. The facts of this case are identical to those in McGraw, where this Court upheld an identical one-year provision when the plaintiff failed to give notice of his claim for underinsured motorist benefits within one year. . . .
By the express terms of the policy, had plaintiff complied with the notice provision in the contract, the one-year limit on commencing suit would not have applied. Thus, the trial court’s conclusion that compliance with the policy was impossible and the contract illusory was erroneous. There has been no showing that plaintiff was unable to provide satisfactory notice within one year. The trial court erred in declaring the provision unenforceable.”
