Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 245165; Unpublished
Judges Neff, Wilder, and Kelly; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals held that the no-fault one year notice rule contained in §3145(1) of the statute requiring written notice of injury within one year after the accident barred plaintiff’s claim for benefits initiated nine years after the accident, where plaintiff’s original timely notice of claim had not included a specific claim for a closed head injury.
Plaintiff was injured in an accident in 1992. In 1993, prior to the one year deadline, she initiated an action for PIP benefits under the policy and that action was settled. In 2001, she initiated a second action, alleging she suffered a closed head injury and was seeking PIP benefits for that injury. The trial court determined that under §3145(1), when plaintiff timely filed her original action, she did not seek PIP benefits for a traumatic brain injury, nor did she provide notice of such an injury. Thus, the trial court determined that the second action was filed after the expiration of the statutory limitation contained in §3145(1).
Plaintiff argued that §3145 did not bar her present action because she gave timely notice of her claim for first-party benefits, which was evidenced by the fact that defendant had paid benefits up to 1994. In rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals held that it is not the “claim” which a plaintiff must give notice of, it is the injury. The plain language of the statute mandates that the nature of the injury must be indicated for the defendant to be properly notified. Michigan courts have consistently held that providing notice of an injury is insufficient to provide the insurer with a basis for evaluation of the claim. “A claim for specific benefits must be submitted. Here, plaintiff’s original claim and action did not include a closed head injury or any head injury. Consequently, plaintiff did not notify defendant of the injury for which she seeks benefits by way of this action.” Therefore, the court concluded that plaintiff did not provide notice of a closed head injury by way of her initial claim of action.
