 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Maryland Casualty Co. v. Allstate Insurance Co.8/4/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Zahra, P.J., and Gage and Murray, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the trial court's order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition. We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
On June 10, 1988, L. Gregory Krugielki sustained permanently disabling injuries in a motor vehicle accident. Krugielki resided in the household of Rosina Krugielki and Larry Krugielki, whose vehicles were insured by plaintiff and defendant, respectively, and occupied the vehicle insured by plaintiff at the time he was injured.
The policies issued by plaintiff and defendant were in equal priority. MCL 500.3114(1). When two insurers are in equal priority with regard to the payment of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, the insurer paying the benefits is entitled to "partial recoupment" of those benefits and related expenses from the other insurer. MCL 500.3115(2). Plaintiff commenced payment of PIP benefits to Krugielki, and sought recoupment of fifty percent of those benefits from defendant. In a letter dated September 12, 1988, defendant cited case law that held that if a claimant was occupying a vehicle specifically insured by one of two insurers in equal priority, that insurer would be responsible for payment of all benefits and would not be entitled to reimbursement.
Plaintiff continued to pay PIP benefits to Krugielki, and took no further action until early 2004, when it informed defendant that the authority on which defendant had relied as support for its assertion that it was not liable for payment of any benefits to Krugielki had been "effectively overruled." Plaintiff asserted that defendant "incorrectly denied paying fifty percent" of the PIP benefits due Krugielki. Defendant declined plaintiff's request for reimbursement.
Plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaration that defendant was required to reimburse it for fifty percent of the PIP benefits paid to Krugielki, and to pay fifty percent of benefits in the future. Defendant moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that plaintiff's claim was barred by the applicable six-year statute of limitations. MCL 600.5813. Defendant asserted that plaintiff's claim accrued on the date on which the wrong upon which the claim was based occurred, and that under the facts of this case that date was September 12, 1988, the date it (defendant) denied plaintiff's request for reimbursement of fifty percent of PIP benefits paid to Krugielki. MCL 600.5827. The trial court granted defendant's motion, finding that plaintiff's claim against defendant accrued in 1988, and was barred by the statute of limitations.
We review a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Auto Club Group Ins Co v Burchell, 249 Mich App 468, 479; 642 NW2d 406 (2001).
An action brought by an insurer against another insurer of the same priority for partial recoupment of PIP benefits already paid to a claimant is not subject to the one-year limitation period for claims seeking payment of PIP benefits. Rather, a statutory recoupment action brought pursuant to MCL 500.3115(2) is subject to the general six-year limitations period in MCL 600.5813. Titan Ins Co v Farmers Ins Co, 241 Mich App 258, 263; 615 NW2d 774 (2000).
The one-year back rule in MCL 500.3145(1) is tolled from the date the insured makes a specific claim to the date the insurer formally denies the claim. Lewis v DAIIE, 426 Mich 93, 101; 393 NW2d 167 (1986). No authority holds that a formal denial must actually contain the term "denied." The only possible meaning of defendant's September 12, 1988 letter to plaintiff was
Page 1 2 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|