Action seeking PIP benefits for attendant care & replacement services; The one-year-back rule; MCL 500.3145(1); ; Tolling; Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n; Whether the preamendment version of MCL 500.3145 applied; General rule that the relevant inquiry in determining the applicability of a statute is the date on which the cause of action arose; Accrual; MCL 500.3110(4); Bronson Health Care Group, Inc v USAA Cas Ins Co

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendant-insurer’s motion for partial summary disposition because the preamendment version of MCL 500.3145(1) barred some of plaintiff’s claims and the current version of the statute barred others. Plaintiff sued defendant seeking payment of PIP benefits for injuries she sustained in a car accident. The court found that “plaintiff’s loss was incurred when she received attendant care and replacement services, and the claims for those services accrued at that time. The preamendment version of MCL 500.3145 applies to plaintiff’s claims for attendant care and replacement services accruing before [6/11/19], because the amendments became effective on that date. The trial court erred to the extent it concluded otherwise.” The current version of MCL 500.3145 governed plaintiff’s claims accruing on or after 6/11/19, and they were “subject to the tolling provision in MCL 500.3145(3), if she made a specific claim for these services to defendant.” As such, plaintiff’s claims “for attendant care and replacement services accruing before [6/11/19], are barred by the one-year-back rule of the preamendment version of MCL 500.3145(1).” In addition, based on the trial court record, it did “not appear that plaintiff provided any evidence she made specific claims for payment of expenses actually incurred for attendant care and replacement services until after the filing of her complaint. Significantly, plaintiff does not dispute that she did not submit such claims to defendant before filing suit. Since plaintiff did not timely submit claims for attendant care and replacement services to defendant, there is nothing to toll under MCL 500.3145(3). Despite the availability of MCL 500.3145(3),” she was still restricted by the one-year-back rule as to reimbursement. MCL 500.3145(3) did not apply, and plaintiff could not recover for attendant care or replacement services rendered between 6/11/19 and 11/3/19. Reversed and remanded.