Injured? Contact Sinas Dramis for a free consultation.


Burns v Auto-Owners; (ICC-UNP, 4/3/1978; RB #69)


Ingham County Circuit Court; Docket No. 77-21110-CK; Unpublished   
Judge Ray C. Hotchkiss; Written Opinion   
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt  

One-Year Notice Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
Required Content of Notice / Sufficiency of Notice [§3145(1)]

Legislative Purpose and Intent  

In a written Opinion dealing with §3145(1) of the no-fault statute, Judge Hotchkiss ruled that if a no-fault insurer does not receive notice in the specific form and method which is statutorily prescribed by §3145, the notice is insufficient for purposes of tolling the one year PIP benefits statute of limitations, even though the insurer has actual knowledge of the accident Judge Hotchkiss ruled that §3145(1) is a statute of limitations and is not merely a notice provision. As a result it is not governed by case law dealing with the interpretation of notice provisions and insurance contracts. Because the statute is clear and specific as to the form and method of notice which must be given to the insurer, it must be strictly complied with. The decision has been appealed.

Michigan auto accident attorney Stephen Sinas is the lead editor of the appellate case summaries published on this site regarding the Michigan auto insurance law. To learn more about how Stephen Sinas and how the Sinas Dramis Law Firm can help you if you have been injured in a Michigan auto accident, visit

Copyright © 2024  Sinas Dramis Law Firm, George Sinas, Stephen Sinas.
All Rights Reserved.
Login (Publishers Only)