Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #219183; Unpublished
Judges Doctoroff, Saad and Wilder; 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In this unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for no-fault PIP benefits based upon the one-year statute of limitations provisions contained in section 3145 of the Act. In this case, plaintiff sustained injury while a passenger in a company vehicle furnished by his employer. After the accident, plaintiff was not able to determine the identity of the insurer of the occupied vehicle. Therefore, plaintiff submitted notice of his no-fault PIP claim to the Assigned Claims Facility of the Michigan Department of State who then assigned the claim to Travelers Insurance Company. Plaintiff also put his employer on notice of his claim for no-fault PIP benefits. Plaintiff then filed a no-fault third-party tort case against the tortfeasor who caused the accident. During the pendency of that case, plaintiff learned that defendant Citizens Insurance Company was the insurer of the vehicle in which plaintiff was riding, and therefore filed a lawsuit against defendant Citizens for PIP benefits. However, this lawsuit was not filed until some 15 months after the accident. The trial court granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition on the basis that the case was time barred. The Court of Appeals affirmed and rejected plaintiff’s argument that the one-year rule should be tolled because defendant had constructive notice of the third-party lawsuit. The court held that defendant did not have sufficient notice that plaintiff would be asserting a claim for no-fault PIP benefits against defendant. Moreover, the court, citing Pendergast v American Fidelity Fire Ins Co, 118 Mich App 838 (1982) [Item No. 549], noted that appellate courts have previously refused to recognize a “due diligence” or “discovery” tolling exception to the one-year statute of limitations contained in section 3145 of the Act. Therefore, plaintiff’s claim was time barred.
