Jesperson v. Auto Club Insurance
306 Mich. App. 632
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On May 12, 2009 plaintiff (motorcyclist) was struck from behind by a slow-moving car driven by Badelalla; plaintiff initially reported no injury but later alleged chronic injuries requiring surgery.
- Plaintiff sued Badelalla, the vehicle owner, and Jet’s Pizza (third-party claim); default entered as to some defendants; jury later found Jet’s Pizza not liable for causing plaintiff’s injury.
- Plaintiff amended to add a first-party no-fault claim against his insurer (defendant); notice to insurer and first payment occurred more than one year after the accident (June 2, 2010 notice; first payment July 23, 2010).
- Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing the one-year statute of limitations in MCL 500.3145(1) barred the claim because no notice or payment occurred within one year of the accident.
- Trial court granted summary disposition on statute-of-limitations grounds; plaintiff appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an insurer must have made a payment within one year of the accident to trigger the statutory exception to the 1-year filing bar in MCL 500.3145(1) | "Previously made a payment" means payment at any time before suit; any insurer payment revives a stale claim even if made after one year | "Previously" means prior to the one-year anniversary of the accident; payment must occur within one year to preserve the right to sue later | Court held payment must have been made within one year of the accident to satisfy the exception and permit suit more than one year after the accident |
| Whether defendant waived the statute-of-limitations defense by failing to plead it specifically in its first responsive pleading | Defendant waived the defense by citing only the one-year-back recovery limitation and not the statute-of-limitations exception | Citation of MCL 500.3145(1) in defendant’s affirmative defenses put plaintiff on notice; alternatively, trial court could have allowed amendment and would have been appropriate | Court held defendant did not waive the defense (no need to remand for amendment); summary disposition affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Harper v. 302 Mich. App. 349 (statutory interpretation framework; examine plain language and context)
- Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 Mich. 562 (MCL 500.3145 contains multiple time limitations and recovery limits)
- Jimkoski v. Shupe, 282 Mich. App. 1 (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Fane v. Detroit Library Comm'n, 465 Mich. 68 (treatment of documentary evidence and pleadings under MCR 2.116(C)(7))
- Tyra v. Organ Procurement Agency of Mich, 302 Mich. App. 208 (requirements for pleading affirmative defenses under MCR 2.111(F))