Perkovic v. Zurich American Insurance Company, 876 N.W.2d 839

On Feb 28, 2009 Perkovic, a leased semi‑truck driver, crashed his truck and received emergency treatment at The Nebraska Medical Center.
On Apr 30, 2009 the hospital custodian of records (James White) mailed Perkovic’s medical bill and records to Zurich (the insurer for the company that leased Perkovic’s truck), stating they were sent on Perkovic’s behalf to obtain payment.
The records named Perkovic, gave his address, described the date, place, and nature of the injuries, and were sent within one year of the accident; Zurich responded denying payment, stamping “No injury report on file for this person.”
Perkovic added Zurich as a defendant more than one year after the accident; prior proceedings had resulted in conflicting rulings about which insurer had priority, culminating in a Court of Appeals ruling that Zurich was the highest priority insurer.
Zurich moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing Perkovic’s suit was time‑barred by MCL 500.3145 because no written notice of injury by the claimant (or someone on his behalf intending to file a PIP claim) was sent within one year.
The trial court granted Zurich’s motion, finding the hospital’s billing documents, sent to obtain payment but without indication someone intended to file a PIP claim, did not satisfy the statute’s notice purpose (i.e., to apprise the insurer to investigate and appropriate funds).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether medical bill/records mailed by provider satisfy MCL 500.3145(1) written‑notice requirement	Perkovic: hospital’s mailed medical bill and records naming him and describing the accident constitute written notice within one year	Zurich: documents lacked any indication of intent to file a PIP claim, were sent to obtain payment, and thus did not trigger insurer’s investigatory/settlement duties	Court: documents, though factually sufficient, did not meet the statute’s purpose absent evidence they were sent to assert a claim or to prompt insurer investigation; summary disposition for Zurich affirmed

Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 473 Mich. 562 (Mich. 2005) (statute must be applied according to its plain meaning; distinguishes tolling/one‑year‑back rule issues)
Shay v. Aldrich, 487 Mich. 648 (Mich. 2010) (standard of review for summary disposition)
Dozier v. State Farm, 95 Mich. App. 121 (Mich. Ct. App. 1980) (substantial compliance can suffice where notice actually apprises insurer to investigate and appropriate funds)
Walden v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 105 Mich. App. 528 (Mich. Ct. App. 1981) (notice form that gave name, time, place, and accident details was sufficient)
Lansing Gen. Hosp., Osteopathic v. Gomez, 114 Mich. App. 814 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982) (agent’s written notice describing time/place of accident sufficed to apprise insurer)
Heikkinen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 124 Mich. App. 459 (Mich. Ct. App. 1983) (documents that technically meet content requirements may still fail if not presented under circumstances indicating a claim)
Joiner v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 137 Mich. App. 464 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984) (notice unrelated to a possible no‑fault claim does not trigger insurer action; notice must apprise insurer of potential no‑fault claim)