First-party no-fault action for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits; Whether the pre-amendment version of MCL 500.3174 barred plaintiff’s claim; Whether the amended version of the statute applied; Accrual; Spine Specialists of MI, PC v MemberSelect Ins Co; Determining whether a statutory amendment applies retroactively; LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysler Group, LLC; Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility (MAIPF)

Holding that the trial court did not err in determining the pre-amendment version of MCL 500.3174 (§ 3174) applied and as a result, defendant-Farmers was entitled to summary disposition, the court affirmed. This first-party action for PIP benefits arose from a 2016 auto accident. The MAIPF assigned plaintiff-Hauanio’s benefits claim to Farmers. Plaintiff argued the trial court erred in not applying MCL 500.3174 as amended by 2019 PA 21 (effective 6/11/19) when it ruled her claims against Farmers were time-barred. The court noted “‘PIP benefits accrue when they are incurred, MCL 500.3110(4), and are incurred when the insured receives medical treatment and becomes obligated to pay.’” There was no dispute that all the benefits claimed here were incurred before the 2019 amendment’s effective date. It was also undisputed that plaintiff’s complaint “would be untimely under the pre-amendment version of § 3174.” The 2019 amendment removed the 30-day time limit in the statute. The only way for her claims to survive was “if the 2019 amendment to § 3174—which occurred after her claims accrued—applies retroactively.” The court applied the factors set forth by the Supreme Court in LaFontaine to determine whether a statutory amendment should be applied retroactively. It first found that nothing in MCL 500.3174’s language indicated “the Legislature intended that the law apply retroactively.” Rather, the amendment appeared on its face to be prospective. Thus, the first LaFontaine factor did not support retroactive application. Second, the statute “does not directly relate to an antecedent event. While the amended statute indirectly relates to antecedent automobile accidents and injuries, which triggered Hauanio’s rights to make a claim for PIP benefits through the MAIPF, this is not enough on its own to render the statute retroactive as to the deadline to make a claim.” As to the third factor, plaintiff sought “to use the post-amendment version of § 3174 to expand her rights and, potentially, resurrect a cause action that was undisputedly time-barred. Retroactive application of the post-amendment version of § 3174 would effectively rewrite history.” Thus, this factor also did not favor retroactive application. The same was true of the fourth factor. Statutes “of limitations that have completely run, as in this case, do not fall into the ‘remedial-procedural exception to prospective application.’”