Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #259453; Unpublished
Judges Smolenski, Owens, and Donofrio; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Revised Judicature Act – Tolling of Statutes of Limitations
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant on plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits because plaintiff failed to file her claim within the one-year statute of limitations contained in MCL 500.3145(1). When plaintiff was 14 years old, she fell and hit her head when the parked car on which she was sitting moved. The vehicle was uninsured at the time of the accident. When plaintiff was 18 years old, she filed an application with the Assigned Claims Facility, claiming a closed head injury. The claim was assigned to defendant and defendant refused to pay. Plaintiff filed this action three years later. On appeal, plaintiff argued that because she was a minor at the time the accident occurred, her action is timely under the saving provision of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5851. The Court of Appeals determined that under its decision in Cameron v Auto Club Insurance Company, because plaintiff’s claim arises under the No-Fault Act, and not the RJA, the one-year back rule contained in the No-Fault Act applies.
Moreover, the court determined that plaintiff’s equal protection and due process challenges fail. Because the classes of plaintiffs created by the RJA – those who fall under the RJA and those who fall under a different statute – do not comprise a suspect class, constitutional challenges to the RJA must be reviewed using a rational basis test. According to the court, it is undisputed that the legislature has a legitimate state interest to provide a time frame for plaintiffs to bring actions in order to protect defendants from fraud and delay as well as to protect plaintiffs from a statute of limitations defense. The creation of the RJA is rationally related to these competing interests and does not, therefore, violate plaintiff’s equal protection rights. Furthermore, the RJA does not violate the due process rights of minors or insane persons because their guardians can file actions in their names. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition for defendant.
