THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956
Act 218 of 1956
500.3145 Limitation of actions for recovery of personal or property protection insurance benefits; period of limitations; tolling; notice of injury.
Sec. 3145.
(1) An action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable under this chapter for an accidental bodily injury may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accident that caused the injury unless written notice of injury as provided in subsection (4) has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or unless the insurer has previously made a payment of personal protection insurance benefits for the injury.
(2) Subject to subsection (3), if the notice has been given or a payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense, work loss, or survivor's loss has been incurred. However, the claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.
(3) A period of limitations applicable under subsection (2) to the commencement of an action and the recovery of benefits is tolled from the date of a specific claim for payment of the benefits until the date the insurer formally denies the claim. This subsection does not apply if the person claiming the benefits fails to pursue the claim with reasonable diligence.
(4) The notice of injury required by subsection (1) may be given to the insurer or any of its authorized agents by a person claiming to be entitled to benefits for the injury, or by someone in the person's behalf. The notice must give the name and address of the claimant and indicate in ordinary language the name of the person injured and the time, place, and nature of the person's injury.
(5) An action for recovery of property protection insurance benefits may not be commenced later than 1 year after the accident.
History: Add. 1972, Act 294, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019
Compiler's Notes:
Act 143 of 1993, which amended this section, was submitted to the people by referendum petition (as Proposal C) and rejected by a majority of the votes cast at the November 8, 1994, general election.
PopularName Notes:
Act 218
PopularName Notes:
Essential Insurance
PopularName Notes:
No-Fault Insurance
Notes of Decisions
Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 718 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. 2006).
· cites it 107× “3145(1) as containing three distinct periods of limitations: two limitations on the time for filing suit (one provided in the first half of the first sentence of MCL 500.3145[1] that starts on the date of the accident, and a second, later one provided in the second sentence of…”
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 815 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 61× “Plaintiff here is seeking to recover no-fault benefits for losses dating back 32 years before she brought her action.”
Univ. of Michigan Regents v. Titan Ins Agency, 791 N.W.2d 897 (Mich. 2010).
· cites it 87× “As a consequence, we overrule Liptow v State Farm Mut Ins Co,1 which held to the contrary, and reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.”
Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 702 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 2005).
· cites it 34× “With these safeguards in place, the purposes of the no-fault act are realized instead of defeated. But with the majority's obstinate rejection of equitable tolling will come the temptation to prolong denying claims, lost benefits, a proliferation of litigation, unpaid providers,…”
Johnson v. Recca, 821 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. 2012).
· cites it 18× “3135(3)(c), and MCL 500.3145(1),10 contain general rules regarding the recovery of economic losses.”
Cooper v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 751 N.W.2d 443 (Mich. 2008).
· cites it 20× “At issue is whether plaintiffs' common-law cause of action for fraud is subject to the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1). Because the one-year-back rule only applies to actions brought under the no-fault act, and because a fraud action is not a no-fault action, i.”
Jesperson v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 878 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. 2016).
· cites it 14× “Among the questions before us is whether an insurer’s payment of no-fault benefits to a plaintiff more than one year after the date of the plaintiffs motor vehicle accident satisfies the second exception to the one-year statute of limitations established in the first sentence of…”
Dell v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 880 N.W.2d 280 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 16× “On one of Citizens’ motions for summary disposition, the trial court ruled that under MCL 500.3145(1), Dell’s claim was limited to benefits incurred no more than a year before she filed her complaint.”
Jawad a Shah Md Pc v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co, 920 N.W.2d 148 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Furthermore, in an effort to avoid problems with the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1), plaintiffs also argued that the amended complaint should relate back to the date of the original complaint because the amendment to accommodate the assignments was intended to support the…”
Liptow v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins., 726 N.W.2d 442 (Mich. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 36× “Defendant argues that the trial court erred by not granting its motion for partial summary disposition limiting plaintiffs' damages under the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1). Defendant contends that this case is controlled by Cameron v.”
Jesperson v. Auto Club Ins., 858 N.W.2d 105 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 31× “It is undisputed that defendant here did not plead the statute of limitations provision contained in MCL 500.3145 as an affirmative defense. Relevant to the instant matter, our Supreme Court has explicitly held that MCL 500.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3145(1) — 266 cases
Cameron v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 718 N.W.2d 784 (Mich. 2006).
“3145(1) as containing three distinct periods of limitations: two limitations on the time for filing suit (one provided in the first half of the first sentence of MCL 500.3145[1] that starts on the date of the accident, and a second, later one provided in the second sentence of…”
Joseph v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 815 N.W.2d 412 (Mich. 2012).
“Plaintiff here is seeking to recover no-fault benefits for losses dating back 32 years before she brought her action.”
Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 702 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 2005).
“With these safeguards in place, the purposes of the no-fault act are realized instead of defeated. But with the majority's obstinate rejection of equitable tolling will come the temptation to prolong denying claims, lost benefits, a proliferation of litigation, unpaid providers,…”
Johnson v. Recca, 821 N.W.2d 520 (Mich. 2012).
“3135(3)(c), and MCL 500.3145(1),10 contain general rules regarding the recovery of economic losses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3145(2) — 63 cases
Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 702 N.W.2d 539 (Mich. 2005).
“With these safeguards in place, the purposes of the no-fault act are realized instead of defeated. But with the majority's obstinate rejection of equitable tolling will come the temptation to prolong denying claims, lost benefits, a proliferation of litigation, unpaid providers,…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3145(3) — 26 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3145(4) — 6 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3145(5) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3145(5)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3145(l) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.