No-fault action; Hit-&-run vehicle collision; PIP benefits; Statute of limitations; Notice; MCL 500.3145(1) & (4); Notice-of-injury exception; Perkovic v Zurich Am Ins Co

The court held that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the case. Plaintiffs sought no-fault PIP benefits for services they provided to a passenger (T) in a vehicle insured by defendant for injuries allegedly sustained in a car accident. The trial court ruled in favor of defendant, finding the action was time-barred. “[P]laintiffs’ claims against defendant were not brought until [11/16/23], nearly two years after the accident took place on” 12/20/21. As such, their claims were “barred by the statute of limitations unless one of the two statutory exceptions applied.” They did not. “In this case, the parties do not dispute that the police traffic crash report contained [T’s] name, address, and the time and place of the accident. Because this appeal can be resolved by addressing the substance of the notice (whether the police report sufficiently described the nature of [T’s] alleged injury),” the court did not need to address the “parties’ arguments about the sufficiency of the method of notice.” Defendant had no indication that T was injured in the accident until plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint on 11/16/23, “nearly 11 months after the statutory limitations period had lapsed. Because the notice-of-injury exception did not apply, plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations in MCL 500.3145(1).” Affirmed.