August 26, 2025
In an unpublished decision of the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Court analyzed the requirements for tolling the statute of limitations for PIP actions, as set forth in MCL 500.3145(1). In this provider suit, Hoover Physical Therapy, LLC v Amerisure Insurance, Co., the plaintiff medical providers sought approximately $42,988.00 for treatment provided to patient Antwan Quinney, allegedly arising out of a December 20, 2021 motor vehicle accident.
On that date, Quinney was a passenger in a Dodge Grand Caravan owned by Barry 365 Day Transport, LLC, which was insured by the defendant, Amerisure. The Grand Caravan was sideswiped in a hit-and-run accident. Police and EMS both arrived at the scene, but no EMS services were needed. As it relates to Quinney, the police report noted he complained of “leg pain” and a type “C” injury.
In May of 2022, a representative of Barry 365 called a claim representative at Amerisure, Bethany Binning, to report the accident but stated there were no injuries reported. Also in May of 2022, a different claim representative at Amerisure retrieved the police report from LexisNexis. Barry 365’s representative against spoke to Mr. Binning in July of 2022, stating no awareness of any injuries.
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit in October of 2022, naming a different insurance company as defendant. The complaint was not amended to make a claim against Amerisure until November 16, 2023, nearly two years after the accident. Plaintiffs claimed that they were owed PIP benefits for treatment provided to Quinney allegedly arising out of the December 2021 accident.
Amerisure filed a Motion for Summary Disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10), arguing that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations set forth in MCL 500.3145(1). Plaintiff countered that, under § 3145(1) and (4), the statute of limitations was tolled by the written notice of injury provided to Amerisure through the police report.
The Court of Appeals, affirming the circuit court’s granting of summary disposition in favor of Amerisure, noted that Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the statute of limitations because they were not brought until nearly two years after the accident occurred. The Court analyzed, however, whether the statute could be tolled because Amerisure was properly notified of Quinney’s injury. The notice-of-injury exception has two components: (1) the method of notice; and (2) the substance of the notice. Regarding the method of notice, the Court affirmed the notice must be in writing, and must be given to the insurer by either the injured person or by someone “in his behalf.” MCL 500.3145(4) The Hoover Court found that any person can provide notice of an injury to an insurer in behalf of an injured person if their reason for doing so is some interest of the injured person. The notice must also be given to the insurer, not simply acquired by the insurer. The Hoover Court found that no one involved in giving the police report to Amerisure in this case was motivated by Quinney’s interest. Rather, the police and LexisNexis acted as neutral third parties and Amerisure’s claim adjuster retrieved the police report without any knowledge of Quinney’s claimed injury.