Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 342156; Unpublished
Judges Murray, Stephens, and Shapiro; per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEXING:
One-Year Back Rule Limitation [§3145(1)]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam decision regarding an application for no-fault PIP benefits, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint because it included counts against a defendant who had already been dismissed from the case and because the plaintiff sought to add the Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility as a defendant more than one year after the motor vehicle accident. Since the amended complaint would not relate back to the original filing, the plaintiff was barred from recovery by the one-year-back rule.
On October 5, 2015, the plaintiff was injured in a motor vehicle collision while driving a vehicle insured by USAU for collision and comprehensive coverage only. The plaintiff’s subsequent claim for no-fault PIP benefits was denied by USAU because the plaintiff was not a named insured under the policy. The plaintiff then applied for benefits through the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan in September of 2016, and commenced a no-fault action against USAA, believing USAA to be the proper insurer. USAA denied liability and was eventually dismissed from the case.
In January of 2017, the MACP notified the plaintiff that it had not received all of the information necessary to process her application for benefits, but the plaintiff did not respond. In February of 2017, the plaintiff filed her first amended complaint to add a claim for no-fault PIP benefits against USAU, which USAU opposed, arguing that it was not responsible for paying the plaintiff’s no-fault PIP benefits under the terms of the policy. In July of 2017, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint seeking to add the MACP as a party to the action, but still listed USAU as a defendant. USAU again opposed, and the trial court instructed the plaintiff to file a separate cause of action against the MAIPF. In August of 2017, USAU moved for summary disposition, which the trial court granted, dismissing USAU from the action with prejudice. Then, in October of 2017, the plaintiff filed a third motion to amend her complaint “in order to add a claim against the MAIPF for failure to assign plaintiff’s claim for no-fault PIP benefits to an insurer.” In her third amended complaint, however, the plaintiff continued to allege claims against USAU. As a result, the trial court denied the plaintiff’s third motion to amend her complaint.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the plaintiff’s third amended complaint for two reasons:
First, the amended complaint should not have included counts against a dismissed party. When plaintiff brought her third motion to amend the complaint, USAU had been dismissed from this action with prejudice. Yet plaintiff continued to assert claims against USAU for PIP benefits and breach of contract. Thus, allowing the amended complaint would have prejudiced USAU. While the court could have struck the counts pertaining to USAU, it did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to amend given plaintiff’s failure to cure an obvious deficiency in the complaint.
Second, plaintiff was not precluded from bring a new suit against the MAIPF, and, contrary to her argument, she did not suffer any prejudice by not being able to add the MAIPF to the current action. Plaintiff sought to add the MAIPF as a defendant under the belief that the amended complaint would relate back to the original filing under MCR 2.118(D) and that the one-year-back rule found in MCL 500.3145 would also run from the date of the original filing. The one-year-back rule forecloses a claimant from recovering “ ‘benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.’ ” Joseph v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 491 Mich 200, 214; 815 NW2d 412 (2012), quoting MCL 500.3145(1). However, the trial court correctly reasoned that an amendment adding the MAIPF as a party would not relate back to the original complaint . . . Significantly, however, “[t]he relation-back doctrine does not apply to the addition of new parties.” Miller, 477 Mich at 106 (quotation marks and citations omitted). See also Employers Mut Cas Co v Petroleum Equip, 190 Mich App 57, 63; 475 NW2d 418 (1991). Thus, the oneyear- back rule would have run from the filing of the amended complaint rather than the date of the original complaint. Accordingly, filing a new action against the MAIPF would not have prejudiced plaintiff.
