This is a statute of limitations case based on MCLA 500.2832; MSA 24.12832. 1
The McGuire residence, during defendant’s insurance coverage period, sustained a firе loss on September 3,1968. Attorneys were engaged by Mr. and Mrs. McGuire. Genеral Adjustment Bureau, Inc., and particularly its branch manager, becаme defendant’s agents to adjust the loss. Shortly after the fire, questions оf Mr. McGuire’s competency and the possibility of arson were raised. On May 28, 1969, the adjuster’s branch manager sent plaintiff’s attorneys a letter with a medical information form requesting a report from Mr. McGuire’s doctors. The letter concluded with the admonition that the defendant insurance company “must have” this infor *614 mation “before they will make any voluntary determination of the claim”.
Plaintiff’s attorneys did not сomply with the request, nor is there any record evidence of discussion or correspondence thereafter until November 4, 1969, when plaintiff through her attorneys filed a complaint in circuit court alleging damages in the ..amount of $12,800.
Defendant’s motion for the acсelerated judgment was granted on the basis that suit was not commenсed within the statutory 12-month period.
Plaintiff contends that when negotiatiоns have begun and the insurer has not denied liability, the insurer cannot then аssert a contractual limitation period to defeat insured’s lеgal suit.
The applicable rule is stated in
Villamor
v
Premier Insurance Co,
“The 12-month limitation set forth in the insurance policy is fundamentally a statutory provision. CLS 1961, §500.2832 (Stat Ann 1957 Rev § 24.12832). Such a limitation has been held to be аn effective bar to tardy insurance claims although there have been exceptions where the Court has ruled that a company waived or is estopped from raising the question of limitations by nеgotiating with the policyholder while the time period expired оr by negotiating with the policyholder until shortly before the expiration of the time limitation.
Friedberg
v.
Insurance Company of North America,
The trial court found that subsequent to May 28, 1969, nothing occurred which would indicate further negotiations between the parties looking toward settlement and concluded that no further negotiations were made.
Plaintiff’s theory of waiver and estoppel is premised upon the belief that the letters indicated continuing negotiations.
*615 We do not agree. The insurance directive required affirmative action, either to supply the information or start suit. Thе intent is clear — no medical report — no further negotiations. Plaintiff was not, or should not have been, lulled into a belief that the fire claim would be considered or negotiated without submission of the medical form. Failure to comply and to remain idle from the date оf the letter, May 28, 1969, through the limitation date of September 3, 1969, is unreasonable and cannot be considered a recognized exception to the 12-month limitation.
The trial court’s finding that negotiations were in fact discontinued is supported by the record and is not clearly erroneous. GCR 1963, 517.1;
Insurance Company of North America
v
Iroff,
Plaintiff contends that the limitation period should be tolled from the date of the fire up until the date of denial or аcceptance of the claim. This argument is contrary to еstablished precedent. The limitation period runs from the date on which the damage occurred, not from the date on which defеndant denied liability.
Dahrooge
v
Rochester German Insurance Co,
Affirmed. Costs to defendant.
Notes
“No suit or action on this policy for the recоvery of any claim shall be sustainable in any court of law or equity unless all the requirements of this policy shall have been complied with, and unless commenced within twelve months next after inception of the loss.”