Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #267504; Unpublished
Judges Davis, Sawyer, and Schuette; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
No-fault Insurer Claims for Reimbursement: Insurer Unequal Priority Reimbursement
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion decided without oral argument, the Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for defendant-insurer in this priority dispute, finding that even though defendant was a higher priority insurer, it is not liable because it was not provided notice of the claim within one year of the accident. In 1999, Jessica Walker, who at the time was 17 years old, was seriously injured in an accident while driving her boyfriend’s car. Jessica had no insurance of her own but her mother indicated that Jessica lived with her so her mother’s insurer, plaintiff, provided Jessica’s personal injury protection benefits. In 2005, plaintiff discovered that at the time of the accident Jessica lived with her boyfriend, not her mother. Therefore, plaintiff filed this action alleging that defendant, the boyfriend’s no-fault insurer, was responsible for Jessica’s PIP benefits. The trial court granted defendant summary disposition, finding the claim untimely under MCL 500.3145(1).
On appeal, plaintiff argued the statute of limitations should be tolled because it reasonably relied on its insured’s representation that her daughter lived with her. The Court of Appeals disagreed, and held that under Titan Insurance Company v North Point Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ___ (2006) [RB #2696], where an insurer brings a subrogation action against an insurer with higher priority, it stands in the shoes of the insured and has no greater rights. Therefore, because MCL 500.3145(1) clearly and unambiguously provides the necessary timeline for recovery and does not provide for judicial tolling, the one-year statute cannot be adjusted. In this regard, the court stated:
“Where a secondary insurer who has provided benefits is seeking reimbursement from an insurer of higher priority, the claim is one of subrogation, and thus the one-year period of limitation of MCL 500.3145(1) applies. Titan Ins Co v North Pointe Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2006), slip op at 5. Accordingly, plaintiff in this case stands in the shoes of Walker, enjoying no greater rights. . . . Titan Ins Co, held that MCL 500.3145(1) ‘clearly and unambiguously states the necessary timeline of an action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits,’ and that because the statute does not provide for judicial tolling, none is available. . . . Accordingly, the statute of limitations cannot be adjusted to run from the time an insurer learns of its claim against one of higher priority.”
