The No-Fault Act (NFA); Tolling; Interpretation of MCL 500.3145(3) as amended by 2019 PA 21; Presumption that statutes apply prospectively; “Explanation of Benefits” letters (EOBs)

Given the lack of clear language indicating the Legislature intended to apply the amendment retroactively, the court held that the trial court did not err in failing to apply the tolling provision in MCL 500.3145(3) to plaintiff’s case. Because the preamendment version of MCL 500.3145 applied, his claim was untimely under the plain language of MCL 500.3145(1). Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-insurer. Plaintiff was injured in an auto accident in 2014. Between 4/4/17 and 4/24/18, he received treatment from a doctor for injuries he alleged were related to the accident. He filed this action on 6/12/20 after defendant responded to invoices from the doctor with EOBs indicating a coverage amount of $0.00. The trial court determined “that the EOBs constituted a formal denial” of his claim and thus, his suit was untimely. Plaintiff argued that it “misinterpreted MCL 500.3145(3) of the postamendment version of the” NFA, because it did not apply the statute’s tolling provision, which became effective on 6/11/19, before he filed his complaint. The court disagreed, finding that in “the amended version of MCL 500.3145, the Legislature did not include language expressing its ‘clear, direct, and unequivocal’ intent to apply this statute retroactively.” The court noted that the “preamendment version of MCL 500.3145(1) did not contain a tolling provision . . . .” Defendant asserted that plaintiff did not “show the action ‘commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense . . . has been incurred.’” It relied on the EOBs, which showed his most recent expense occurred on 1/11/18. Thus, under MCL 500.3145(1)’s plain language, he should have filed suit by 1/11/19, “one year from the most recent expense.”