Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 242494; Unpublished
Judges Donofrio, Griffin, and Jansen; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Uninsured Motorist Benefits: Notice and Statute of Limitations for Uninsured Motorist Coverage
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld a provision in the uninsured motorist provisions of Farmers Insurance policy, which required a person to notify Farmers of the accident within 30 days, if a claim for uninsured motorist benefits predicated on a hit-and-run accident was to be filed.
Plaintiff submitted a notice and claim for benefits four months after the accident occurred. Plaintiff then argued that the 30-day notice period was unreasonably short under the circumstances.
In upholding the notice requirement, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that, as a general rule, an insured’s failure to comply with a notice provision does not relieve an insurer of its obligation to provide benefits, unless it was prejudiced by the lateness of the notice. Koski v Allstate Insurance Company, 456 Mich 439, 444; 572 NW2d 636 (1998).
In this case, the court concluded that reasonable minds could not disagree that defendant was prejudiced by plaintiff’s failure to give notice of the accident within 30 days. When plaintiff gave untimely notice of the accident and made a demand for uninsured motorist benefits, he misidentified defendant’s insured, supplied witness statements that contradicted the police report, asserted that the police report was erroneous, and failed to supply medical records. Here, defendant’s receipt of inaccurate, incomplete, and contradictory information regarding the accident, deprived it of the opportunity to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the accident while they were still fresh in the mind of the plaintiff, the responding police officers, and the purported witnesses, and to preserve any physical evidence. Plaintiff’s delay deprived defendant of the opportunity to make a prompt determination of the extent of its liability. The court therefore reversed and remanded for entry of an Order of Summary Disposition in favor of the defendant.
