Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #237401; Unpublished
Judges Markey, Saad and Smolenski; unanimous; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Injunctive and Equitable Relief in PIP Cases
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals upheld dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits based upon the failure of plaintiff to file a complaint or file written notice of his personal injury claim within one year of his injury, pursuant to section 3145 of the no-fault statute.
The plaintiff contended in this action that the defendant should be equitably estopped from asserting the statute of limitations in section 3145 as a bar to plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff relied on the holding in Cincinnati Insurance Company v Citizens Insurance Company, 454 Mich 263; 562 NW2d 648 (1997), which held that a defendant insurance company could be equitably estopped from asserting the one year statute of limitations as a bar to a claim if its own actions induced the claimant to refrain from filing suit until the limitations period expired.
The Court of Appeals held that plaintiff failed to present evidence of assertions comparable to those in Cincinnati, supra, so as to justify the elements of estoppel. There was no evidence that Chubb’s adjuster had prevented plaintiff from providing timely notice or requested that plaintiff’s attorney forego filing notice for the convenience of the defendant. Plaintiff’s attorney claimed below that he took statements from the adjuster to mean that he did not need to send written notice of plaintiff’s claim that otherwise would be required to be sent within one year after he had spoken with the adjuster and she indicated that she would “open a claim file.” Plaintiff’s attorney’s subjective belief as to the meaning of the adjuster’s statement was not sufficient evidence to create an estoppel. The Court of Appeals held that courts should be reluctant to recognize an estoppel absent intentional or negligent conduct “designed to induce” a plaintiff to refrain from bringing a timely action.
