MICHIGAN EDUC EMP V RICHARD MORRIS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
MICHIGAN EDUCATIONAL EMPLOYEES
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
UNPUBLISHED
November 22, 1996
Plaintiff-Appellee,
Cross Appellant,
v
No. 186256
LC No. 93-038659-NZ
RICHARD MORRIS, Conservator of
The Estate of Celia Annette Wooten,
Legally Incapacitated Person,
Defendant-Appellant.
Cross Appellee.
Before: Michael J. Kelly, P.J., and O’Connell and K.W. Schmidt,* JJ.
PER CURIAM.
The underlying facts are not in dispute. Because of a conflict in opinions from this court the
coordination of social security disability benefits with plaintiff’s policy providing benefits under the no
fault act remained in doubt for some period of time. The trial court recognized that plaintiff was entitled
to summary disposition on the basis of the uncontested facts and the Supreme Court decision in Profit
v Citizens Insurance Co, 444 Mich 281; 406 NW2d 514, (1993). At issue here is only the questions
whether, in its opinion and order filed May 10, 1995, the trial court’s limitation of reimbursement of the
social security off-set to benefits received over a one year period is sustainable. We hold it is not and
reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.
As a general rule, appellate court decisions are entitled to full retroactivity. Jahner v
Department of Corrections, 197 Mich App 111; 495 NW2d 168, (1992). Prospective application is
warranted only when overruling settled precedent or deciding questions of first impression whose result
was not foreshadowed. Here defendant offers no evidence that there was general reliance on some
interpretation of law other than the one announced by the Supreme Court in Profit prior to that
decision. Furthermore the instant case was not even pending at the time Profit was decided. It was
* Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.
-1
not initiated until after Profit was decided and yet defendant refused to follow it. It therefore appears
that application of Profit to this case is prospective not retroactive.
Defendant next claims that plaintiff should be held to a one year statute of limitations, § 3145 of
the no-fault act does not apply to this action. Auto Club v New York Ins Co, 440 Mich 126; 137-138;
485 NW2d 695, (1992), Westchester Ins Co v Safeco Ins Co,203 Mich App 663, 668, 669; 513
NW2d 212 (1994). Because there is no other statute of limitations directly applicable, the general six
year limitation period of RJA §5813 applies.
We affirm as to the trial court’s holding of liability but remand and order the judgment modified
to reflect plaintiff’s right to full reimbursement and remand for that purpose. We do not retain
jurisdiction.
/s/ Michael J. Kelly
/s/ Kenneth W. Schmidt
-2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
