Action for no-fault benefits pursuant to an assignment of rights; The one-year-back rule; MCL 500.3145(1); Equitable estoppel; Cincinnati Ins Co v Citizens Ins Co; Motion for reconsideration; MCR 2.119(F)(3)

The court held that the trial court did not err by granting defendant-insurer summary disposition of plaintiff-physical therapy provider’s action seeking compensation for services it provided to defendant’s insured, who was injured in an auto accident. The insured had sued defendant in an earlier action seeking to recover unpaid PIP benefits. Plaintiff filed a notice of lien in that lawsuit and requested to receive information about the case evaluation. The insured and defendant accepted the case evaluation award. Plaintiff moved to reopen the insured’s case, but the trial court denied relief because it was not a party to that case. Plaintiff then filed this action, pursuant to an assignment of rights, seeking compensation from defendant for the services it provided to the insured. The trial court found that plaintiff’s claim was barred by the one-year back rule. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the trial court erred because defendant should be equitably estopped from asserting the one-year back rule as a defense. Plaintiff argued that defendant’s conduct was designed to delay it from commencing a lawsuit, but “even when viewed in a light most favorable to” plaintiff, the evidence was insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court noted that plaintiff failed “to establish a genuine issue of material fact that [defendant] made representations intended to delay [plaintiff] from filing suit or that [plaintiff] justifiably relied on any representation by” defendant. The court also rejected plaintiff’s claim that the trial court erred by denying its motion for reconsideration. “Even if the trial court had agreed that estoppel could arise from communications regarding [plaintiff’s] decision to take its claims out of the insured’s suit, there is, as reviewed, no evidence establishing a question of fact that” defendant intended to induce plaintiff into doing so. “And the trial court did not err by concluding that the motion for reconsideration failed to raise an issue that had not already decided by the court in its initial ruling granting summary disposition.” Affirmed.