Davis v. Farmers Ins. Group of Companies, Docket No. 77-1467
Decision Date | 21 September 1978 |
Docket Number | Docket No. 77-1467 |
Citation | 272 N.W.2d 334,86 Mich.App. 45 |
Parties | Bobby James DAVIS, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. FARMERS INSURANCE GROUP OF COMPANIES, Defendant-Appellant. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Vandeveer, Garzia, Tonkin, Kerr & Heaphy by Thomas P. Rockwell, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Sherwin Schreier, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before RILEY, P. J., and CAVANAGH and HENSICK, * JJ.
Plaintiff brought this action to recover benefits under a policy of insurance issued to him by defendant, for injuries sustained in a motorcycle accident. Defendant brought a motion for accelerated judgment under GCR 1963, 116.1(5), on grounds that the claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant brings this appeal by leave of the Court.
The decision of this case depends upon an interpretation of a section of the no-fault insurance statute, M.C.L. § 500.3145(1); M.S.A. § 24.13145(1), which provides:
Plaintiff contends that the quoted section is not a limitation of actions provision, but rather a notice provision and therefore constitutes a bar to this action only if defendant establishes that it was prejudiced by the lack of notice, citing Carver v. McKernan, 390 Mich. 96, 211 N.W.2d 24 (1973).
We disagree. Notice provisions have different objectives than statutes of limitation. Notice provisions are designed, Inter alia, to provide time to investigate and to appropriate funds for settlement purposes. Statutes of limitation are intended to prevent stale claims and to put an end to fear of litigation. Dillon v. Tamminga # 1, 64 Mich.App. 301, 236 N.W.2d 716 (1975).
In Dolson v. Secretary of State, 83 Mich.App. 596, 269 N.W.2d 239 (1978), we dealt with the time limitation for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits claimed through an assigned claims plan, embodied in M.C.L. § 500.3174; M.S.A. § 24.13174. The time limitation contained in that section is determined by applying M.C.L. § 500.3145(1); M.S.A. § 24.13145(1), which provision is involved in the instant case. We concluded in Dolson that the specific objective of the time limitation is to insure that claims be settled while the evidence remains fresh. This objective is characteristic of a statute of limitation.
In the case at bar, the language of the statute was intended as a limitation on actions for personal benefits arising under the no-fault act, with a mechanism for...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rusha v. Dep't of Corr.
...this one generally give the state “time to investigate and to appropriate funds for settlement purposes,” Davis v. Farmers Ins. Group, 86 Mich.App. 45, 47, 272 N.W.2d 334 (1978), while simultaneously allowing the claimant to retain the full benefit of the applicable limitations period.8 See......
-
Butler v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Insurance Exchange
...insurer. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Frankenmuth Mutual Ins. Co., 111 Mich.App. 617, 620-621, 314 N.W.2d 711 (1981); Davis v. Farmers Ins. Group, 86 Mich.App. 45, 272 N.W.2d 334 (1978), lv. den. 406 Mich. 868 (1979). GCR 1963, 116.1(5) allows a party to move for accelerated judgment by raising a s......
-
Lansing General Hospital, Osteopathic v. Gomez
...injury benefits arising under the automobile no-fault insurance act and not merely as a notice provision. Davis v. Farmers Ins. Co., 86 Mich.App. 45, 272 N.W.2d 334 (1978). The claimant can extend the one-year statute of limitations period for up to one additional year by giving In this cas......
-
Aldrich v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co.
...the quoted provision of the act is to encourage claimants to commence their actions in a timely fashion, Cf. Davis v. Farmers Ins. Group Cos., 86 Mich.App. 45, 272 N.W.2d 334 (1978), it should not encourage procrastination by either party by undercutting such policy. The insured is not barr......
-
Defining the Problem
...although statutory notice requirements and statutes of limitations do not serve identical objectives, Davis v. Farmers Ins. Group , 86 Mich. App. 45, 47; 272 N.W.2d 334 (1978), both are procedural requirements that ultimately restrict a plaintif’s remedy, but not the substantive right. See ......