Elias Yaghnam v. John Doe, 353547

On October 2, 2016, Elias Yaghnam was injured in a motor-vehicle crash and had an auto policy with UM/UIM benefits from Michigan Insurance Company.
The policy contained a contractual notice provision requiring any UM/UIM claim to be reported "within three years of the date of loss."
Yaghnam filed suit on October 3, 2019 (three years and one day after the crash), alleging negligence against an unknown driver and asserting a UM/UIM claim against Michigan Insurance Company.
Michigan Insurance moved for summary disposition, arguing the three-year limitations/notice rule applied; Yaghnam argued he pleaded a breach-of-contract claim (invoking a six-year limitations period) and later pointed to an October 19, 2018 email exchange as notice.
The trial court granted summary disposition, finding Yaghnam failed to plead a breach-of-contract claim and had not provided the required contractual notice; the court denied reconsideration and an opportunity to amend was found futile on the record.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which limitations period governs the UM/UIM claim?	Characterize claim as breach of contract → 6-year limitations applies.	Claim is for injury/UM benefits subject to 3-year statutory/contractual limit; policy requires 3-year notice.	Court: Plaintiff did not plead breach; 6-year period not available; dismissal stands.
Did the complaint adequately plead a breach-of-contract claim?	Complaint alleges existence of policy and entitlement to UM benefits, which suffices as breach pleading.	Complaint lacks any allegation that insurer breached or that a timely claim was made.	Held: Complaint fails to allege breach; dismissal permissible under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
Did the October 19, 2018 email chain constitute timely notice under the policy?	Email exchange shows insurer declined UM settlement on Oct 19, 2018, so notice was within three years.	Email reflects counsel said no UM claim was made; the settlement query was informal and not an assertion of a claim.	Held: Email did not provide the notice required by the policy; it was insufficient.
Should leave to amend be permitted to assert breach?	If complaint deficient, plaintiff should be allowed to amend to plead breach.	Amendment would be futile because record lacks evidence of timely notice or insurer breach; plaintiff did not present a proposed amended complaint.	Held: Amendment would be futile on the record; denial of reconsideration and dismissal affirmed.

Barnard Mfg Co, Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich App 362, 775 NW2d 618 (standard of review for summary-disposition motions)
Dalley v Dykema Gossett, 287 Mich App 296, 788 NW2d 679 (MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests legal sufficiency of pleadings)
El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich 152, 934 NW2d 665 (C(8) dismissal only when no factual development could justify recovery)
Rory v Continental Ins Co, 473 Mich 457, 703 NW2d 23 (UM benefits are contractual and construed outside the no-fault act)
Auto-Owners Ins Co v Harvey, 219 Mich App 466, 556 NW2d 517 (policy language governs conditions for UM benefits)
Miller–Davis Co v Ahrens Const, Inc, 495 Mich 161, 848 NW2d 95 (elements required to establish breach of contract)
Gorman v American Honda Motor Co, 302 Mich App 113, 839 NW2d 223 (causation element for contract damages)
Twichel v MIC Gen Ins Corp, 469 Mich 524, 676 NW2d 616 (contract interpretation reviewed de novo)
Wilkie v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 469 Mich 41, 664 NW2d 776 (contracts interpreted by plain and ordinary meaning)
Liggett Restaurant Group, Inc v Pontiac, 260 Mich App 127, 676 NW2d 633 (amendment is futile when it would not cure pleading defects)
Anton, Sowerby & Assoc, Inc v Mr C’s Lake Orion, LLC, 309 Mich App 535, 872 NW2d 699 (failure to present a proposed amended complaint prevents assessing whether amendment is justified)