Action to recover personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits from the State; Notice requirement; MCL 500.3145(1); The one-year back rule; MCL 500.3145(2); Verification requirement for a notice of intent (NOI) under the Court of Claims Act (CCA); MCL 600.6431; MCL 600.6434; Fairley v Department of Corrs; Leave to amend to cure a faulty notice filed within MCL 600.6431(1)’s one-year period; Progress MI v Attorney Gen; Elia Cos, LLC v University of MI Regents

The court held that the Court of Claims erred by denying plaintiff’s motion to amend his NOI and complaint to satisfy the CCA’s verification requirement. Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident while a passenger in a vehicle owned and self-insured by defendant-State. He filed a NOI in the Court of Claims to bring a claim against defendant to recover PIP benefits. The notice was signed by plaintiff and his counsel, but not verified “before an officer authorized to administer oaths” as required by the CCA. About a week later, he filed his complaint in the Court of Claims, which was also signed by plaintiff and his counsel but not notarized. The Court of Claims denied plaintiff’s request for leave to amend, granted summary disposition for defendant, and dismissed his claim, finding the NOI was insufficient and that the time for strictly complying with the CCA’s one-year notice period had lapsed. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that the Court of Claims erred by denying his motion to amend the NOI and complaint to satisfy the verification requirement. “Having provided notice that satisfies MCL 500.3145, plaintiff’s suit was not barred by the statute of limitations.” His NOI and complaint were not void and amendment was permitted. “Plaintiff must comply with the requirements of MCL 600.6431 and MCL 600.6434,” but Progress MI and Elia established that “he ‘may correct any defect in complying with those requirements during the pendency of the proceedings and in accordance with the court rules.’” On remand, he “should be afforded an opportunity to cure any defects in his compliance with the CCA’s verification requirements.” Reversed and remanded.