Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #257275; Published
Judges Schuette, Murray, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 270 Mich. App. 339, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
Tolling of Limitations for Estoppel [3145]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Legislative Purpose and Intent
CASE SUMMARY:
In this published unanimous per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant insurance company, finding that where a subrogation action was not commenced within one year of the accident, the action is barred by the one-year statute of limitation contained in MCL 500.3145(1). Plaintiff Robert Wells was injured while riding his motorcycle when he was struck by an uninsured motor vehicle. Plaintiff Titan Insurance was assigned Wells’ claim. Titan paid over $42,000 in personal injury protection benefits. More than a year after the accident, Titan discovered that Wells was insured through a no-fault policy issued by defendant North Pointe Insurance. North Pointe refused to reimburse plaintiff because it did not receive notice of the claim within one year of the accident as required by MCL 500.3145(1). The trial court granted North Pointe’s motion for summary disposition. On appeal, plaintiff argued that because it sought benefits and filed its action within one year of discovering defendant’s existence, it should not be penalized. The Court of Appeals disagreed. In affirming the trial court’s decision, it first noted that §3145(1) clearly states that an action for personal protection insurance benefits cannot be commenced later than one year after the date of the accident. It then noted that under Devillers v Auto Club Insurance Association, equitable tolling cannot be applied to unambiguous statutory language. In this regard, the court stated:
“. . . MCL 500.3145(1) clearly and unambiguously states the necessary timeline of an action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits. . . . [E]quitable tolling cannot be applied to unambiguous statutory language. . . . The trial court correctly concluded that the statutory language was unambiguous and refused to expand it by the addition of judicial tolling principles. We agree with the trial court’s finding that plaintiff was attempting to expand the statute by adding a tolling provision that, because the statute was unambiguous, further interpretation was not permitted.”
The court next rejected plaintiff’s alternate argument that it should have been allowed to amend its complaint to add a count for recovery of mistaken payment. Under Michigan Mutual Insurance Co v Home Mutual Insurance Co, [RB #439], and Federal Kemper Insurance Co v Western Insurance Cos, [RB #320], actions between insurance companies for benefits mistakenly paid are claims for subrogation and are subject to the one-year statute of limitations contained in MCL 500.3145(1). Therefore, even if the benefits were mistakenly paid, the trial court properly found that plaintiff’s claim is one for subrogation subject to the one-year statute of limitations.
