Dismissal based on the statute of limitations in MCL 500.5145; Devillers v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n; Whether the medical bill & records sent by the healthcare provider complied with the written notice of injury requirement; Whether documents must be sent with the intent to file a claim; Dozier v. State Farm; Walden v. Auto Owners Ins. Co.; Lansing Gen. Hosp., Osteopathic v. Gomez; Heikkinen v. Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co.; Joiner v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.; Applicability of Welton v. Carriers Ins. Co.
Disagreeing with the plaintiff’s assertion that there is no requirement that documents be sent with the intent to file a claim, the court held that he did not provide sufficient notice of injury pursuant to MCL 500.3145(1) and thus, the trial court properly granted the defendant-insurer summary disposition. The case arose from a car accident on 2/28/09. It was determined that defendant was the highest priority insurer. Plaintiff asserted that he complied with the notice requirement when a records custodian (W) for the medical center that treated him after the accident sent a medical bill and medical records to defendant on 4/30/09. The court concluded that “the notice provided plaintiff’s name and address, and indicated in ordinary language the name of the person injured and the time, place, and nature of his injury.” The medical bill and records were also “given to defendant within one year after” the accident. However, defendant argued that “MCL 500.3145(1)’s requirement that the notice be made by ‘a person claiming to be entitled to benefits therefor, or by someone in his behalf’ means that the information must convey the intent to make a claim for PIP benefits.” While the court concluded that Welton did not apply here, it reviewed several other cases - Dozier, Walden, Gomez, Heikkinen, and Joiner. It noted that while it “does not always require strict, technical compliance with the requirements of MCL 500.3145(1), in Dozier, Walden, and Gomez there was no indication that the defendant was unaware of a possible no-fault claim. The defendants in those cases were sent either a letter or a written notice form.” However, here “no letter or written notice form was sent that would alert defendant to the possible pendency of a no-fault claim.” The medical bill and records “were sent to defendant without any indication of a possible claim.” According to W, they “were sent for the purpose of obtaining payment. This notice of injury, which was unrelated to a possible claim for no-fault benefits, did not trigger defendant’s investigative procedures or advise defendant of the need to appropriate funds for settlement.” Like the death certificate in Heikkinen, the medical bill and records, “although sufficient in content, did not fulfill the purposes of the statute.” Affirmed.
Full PDF Opinion