THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956
Act 218 of 1956
500.3174 Notice of claim through assigned claims plan; assignment of claim; notice to claimant; commencement of action by claimant.
Sec. 3174.
A person claiming through the assigned claims plan shall notify the Michigan automobile insurance placement facility of his or her claim within 1 year after the date of the accident. On an initial determination of a claimant's eligibility for benefits through the assigned claims plan, the Michigan automobile insurance placement facility shall promptly assign the claim in accordance with the plan and notify the claimant of the identity and address of the insurer to which the claim is assigned. An action by a claimant must be commenced as provided in section 3145.
History: Add. 1972, Act 294, Eff. Mar. 30, 1973 ;-- Am. 1972, Act 345, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1973 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 204, Eff. Sept. 1, 2012 ;-- Am. 2019, Act 21, Imd. Eff. June 11, 2019
Compiler's Notes:
Enacting section 1 of Act 204 of 2012 provides:
"Enacting section 1. Sections 3172, 3173a, 3174, and 3175 of the insurance code of 1956, 1956 PA 218, MCL 500.3172, 500.3173a, 500.3174, and 500.3175, as amended by this amendatory act, take effect on the date the assigned claims plan is approved by the insurance commissioner under section 3171(3) of the insurance code of 1956, 1956 PA 218, MCL 500.3171."
PopularName Notes:
Act 218
PopularName Notes:
Essential Insurance
PopularName Notes:
No-Fault Insurance
Notes of Decisions
Bronson Methodist Hosp. v. Allstate Ins., 779 N.W.2d 304 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 15× “Bronson Methodist Hospital responded that MCL 500.3174, the assigned claims plan notice and commencement section of the no-fault insurance act, extended the recovery limitation provision of MCL 500.”
Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 891 N.W.2d 13 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 5× “I pose the question of: what happens when an innocent third party tries to obtain PIP benefits through the insurer listed on the policy, only to have that insurer subsequently rescind the policy based on fraud in which the innocent third party did not participate, and the…”
Dolson v. Sec'y of State, 269 N.W.2d 239 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
· cites it 10× “On April 22, 1977, plaintiff claimed entitlement to insurance benefits from the Assigned Claims Facility, pursuant to MCL 500.”
Bronson Health Care Grp. Inc v. Titan Ins. Co., 887 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“3173a(l) requires the “Michigan automobile insurance placement facility [to] make an initial determination of a claimant’s eligibility for benefits under the assigned claims plan,” and unless the claimant is obviously ineligible, MCL 500.3174 requires it to “promptly assign the…”
Spencer v. Citizens Ins., 608 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “benefits to the claimant”); MCL 500.3174; MSA 24.13174 (requiring that the Assigned Claims Facility “shall promptly assign the claim in accordance with the plan and notify the claimant of the identity and address of the insurer to which the claim is assigned”); and MCL 500.”
Pendergast v. Am. Fid. Fire Ins., 325 N.W.2d 602 (Mich. Ct. App. 1982).
· cites it 2× “A person entitled to no-fault benefits who has difficulty in determining the identity of the responsible insurer is given rights agáinst the Assigned Claims Office under MCL 500.3174; MSA 24.13174. 2 This alternative was not timely exercised by the plaintiff.”
Rawlins v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co., 284 N.W.2d 782 (Mich. Ct. App. 1979).
“We concluded in Dolson that the specific objective of the time limitation is to insure that claims be settled while the evidence remains fresh.”
Michigan Assigned Claims Facility v. Felski (In Re Felski), 277 B.R. 732 (E.D. Mich. 2002).
· cites it 2× “” Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3172 (1). In such a case, the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility assigns the claim to an insurer doing business in this state according to statutorily authorized rules.”
Yustick v. Eli Lilly & Co., 573 F. Supp. 1558 (E.D. Mich. 1983).
“Finally, the result in Pendergast is thoroughly in keeping with the analysis of this case. The court noted that under the no-fault statute a plaintiff who does not know the identity of the insured tort-feasor has a remedy through an assigned claims plan under M.”
Davis v. Farmers Ins. Grp., 272 N.W.2d 334 (Mich. Ct. App. 1978).
“We concluded in Dolson that the specific objective of the time limitation is to insure that claims be settled while the evidence remains fresh.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3174(1) — 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.