VICTORIA JONES V FARMERS INS EXCHANGE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
VICTORIA JONES and MICHAEL JOHNSON,
UNPUBLISHED
November 23, 2010
Plaintiffs,
and
HENRY FORD HEALTH SYSTEM,
Intervening Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 293206
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 08-110526-NI
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
GARY WHITE,
Defendant.
Before: BORRELLO, P.J., and CAVANAGH and OWENS, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Defendant, Farmers Insurance Exchange (defendant), appeals as of right from a judgment
entered in favor of intervening plaintiff, Henry Ford Health System (HFHS), in this action for
recovery of no-fault benefits. We affirm.
Plaintiffs were injured in an automobile accident on May 8, 2007. Defendant was
appointed by the Assigned Claims Facility to pay no-fault benefits. Plaintiffs filed their
complaint for no-fault benefits on April 25, 2008, seeking payment of medical expenses, wage
loss, and other expenses.
On February 25, 2009, HFHS filed a motion for leave to intervene as a plaintiff. HFHS
alleged that plaintiff Jones had been hospitalized as a result of her injuries in the accident and
incurred a medical bill of $15,316.75. The date of service was May 9, 2007. The trial court
granted the motion to intervene in an order dated March 6, 2009. HFHS filed its intervening
complaint on April 6, 2009.
-1-
On May 11, 2009, defendant moved for summary disposition with respect to HFHS’s
intervening complaint pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10). Defendant argued that MCL
500.3145(1) barred HFHS from recovering any benefits for expenses incurred more than one
year before April 6, 2009, when it filed its intervening complaint. In response, HFHS contended
that, because plaintiffs’ initial action was filed less than one year after the accident, MCL
500.3145(1) did not bar HFHS’s recovery. In other words, for purposes of the one-year-back
rule, “the action was commenced” when plaintiffs filed their complaint on April 25, 2008. The
trial court denied defendant’s motion, holding: “The intervening party here Henry Ford Hospital
System provided medical care to the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff in this case. Their claim is
derivative of hers. Standing alone they wouldn’t have any claim. Their claim relates back to
hers.” On July 8, 2009, the court entered a judgment for $20,000 in favor of HFHS and against
defendant. This appeal followed.
Defendant argues that its motion for summary disposition should have been granted
because the one-year-back rule, MCL 500.3145(1), began to run with regard to HFHS when
HFHS filed its intervening complaint, not when plaintiffs’ complaint was filed. We disagree.
This Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo.
Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). A motion under MCR
2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint by the pleadings alone and may be granted
only where the claims alleged are clearly unenforceable as a matter of law. Id. at 118-119. A
motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of a complaint and may be granted
only when there is no genuine issue of any material fact. Corley v Detroit Bd of Ed, 470 Mich
274, 278; 681 NW2d 342 (2004). Issues of statutory interpretation are reviewed de novo as a
matter of law. Casco Twp v Secretary of State, 472 Mich 566, 571; 701 NW2d 102 (2005).
The parties here do not dispute that a health care provider may bring an action against an
insurer to recover no-fault benefits payable for the benefit of an insured injured person. See
Lakeland Neurocare Ctrs v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 250 Mich App 35, 39; 645 NW2d 59
(2002). The parties also do not dispute that the one-year-back rule generally applies to health
care providers who bring an action against an insurer when the insured has not commenced an
action against the insurer. See e.g., Henry Ford Health Sys v Titan Ins Co, 275 Mich App 643,
647; 741 NW2d 393 (2007). Here, however, the insured plaintiffs had commenced an action
against the insurer defendant and HFHS subsequently intervened in that action. Thus, the issue
in this case is: On what date does the one-year-back rule begin to run with regard to the health
care provider—on the date that the insured commenced the action or on the date the health care
provider filed its complaint after being permitted to intervene in that same action? For the
answer we look to well-established rules of statutory construction.
The primary goal of statutory interpretation is to give effect to the intent of the
Legislature. Briggs Tax Serv, LLC v Detroit Pub Sch, 485 Mich 69, 76; 780 NW2d 753 (2010).
We first turn to the language of the statute. Id. If the statutory language is unambiguous, the
Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning clearly expressed, and the statute must be
enforced as written. Id. The fair and natural import of the terms employed, in view of the
subject matter of the law, governs. In re Wirsing, 456 Mich 467, 474; 573 NW2d 51 (1998).
MCL 500.3145(1) provides, in pertinent part:
-2-
An action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable
under this chapter for accidental bodily injury may not be commenced later than 1
year after the date of the accident causing the injury unless written notice of injury
as provided herein has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or
unless the insurer has previously made a payment of personal protection insurance
benefits for the injury. If the notice has been given or a payment has been made,
the action may be commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent
allowable expense, work loss or survivor’s loss has been incurred. However, the
claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1
year before the date on which the action was commenced.
As stated in Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562, 574; 702 NW2d 539 (2005), the
statute “contains two limitations on the time for filing suit and one limitation on the period for
which benefits may be recovered.” The recovery limitation is referred to as the “one-year-back”
rule or provision. Id. Thus, our focus turns to this third sentence—the recovery limitation
provision.
The starting date of the one-year-back rule is “the date on which the action was
commenced.” MCL 500.3145(1). “A civil action is commenced by filing a complaint with a
court.” MCR 2.101(B). In the recovery limitation provision, the Legislature used the word “the”
with respect to “action.” “The” is a definite article which, when used especially before a noun
like “action,” has a specifying or particularizing effect. See Robinson v City of Lansing, 486
Mich 1, 14; 782 NW2d 171 (2010) (citations omitted). Because the recovery limitation
provision refers to “the action,” we must determine to which “specific or particular” action it is
referring. The phrase “the action” in this provision, plainly read, refers to the term “action”
referenced in the preceding sentences. The first sentence sets forth a time limitation on the
commencement of “[a]n action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits.” The
second sentence further restricts the time for commencement of “the action.” Thus, the phrase
“the action” in the recovery limitation provision must refer to “[a]n action for recovery of
personal protection insurance benefits . . . ,” as set forth in the first sentence of the provision.
Here, the insured plaintiffs commenced “[a]n action for recovery of personal protection
insurance benefits” on April 25, 2008. On February 25, 2009, HFHS filed a motion for leave to
intervene in this action that had already been commenced, and that motion was granted. Thus,
“the action” “for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits” was already commenced at
the time HFHS sought to intervene. Accordingly, “the date on which the action was
commenced” was April 25, 2008—and that is the date the one-year-back rule began to run.
Because HFHS sought payment for medical services rendered on May 9, 2007, its intervening
claim was not barred by the one-year-back rule. Accordingly, the trial court properly denied
defendant’s motion for summary disposition, albeit for the wrong reason. See Taylor v Laban,
241 Mich App 449, 458; 616 NW2d 229 (2000).
Affirmed. Intervening plaintiff, HFHS, is entitled to costs as the prevailing party. MCR
7.219(A).
/s/ Stephen L. Borrello
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Donald S. Owens
-3-
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.