|
No. 127018
| Diane Cameron and James Cameron |
|
Robert E. Logeman |
| Co-Guardians of the Estate of Daniel Cameron, |
|
|
Plaintiffs-Appellants, |
|
|
vs (Washtenaw - Kirkendall, J.)
|
|
|
Auto Club Insurance Association, |
|
James G. Gross |
| Defendant-Appellee. |
|
|
| ______________________________________ |
|
|
| |
|
|
Click to view briefs in Adobe format:
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Brief on Appeal>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants Reply Brief>>
Plaintiffs-Appellants' Supplemental Brief>>
Defendant-Appellee's Brief on Appeal>>
Defendant-Appellee's Supplemental Brief>>
Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault's (CPAN)
Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Coalition Protecting Auto No-Fault's (CPAN) Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Insurance Institute of Michigan's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Insurance Institute of Michigan's Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association's Supplemental Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Department of Community Health's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Michigan Trial Lawyers Association's Amicus Curiae Brief>>
Background
Daniel Cameron was injured in an automobile accident on August 22, 1996. In this lawsuit, filed on May 9, 2002, his parents, Diane and James Cameron, sought to recover payment of attendant care benefits from the date of the accident through August 1999, when Daniel was admitted into in-patient rehabilitation. Their no-fault insurance company, Auto Club Insurance Association (ACIA), refused to pay the requested benefits. ACIA argued that the Camerons had not previously requested payment for those services. ACIA further contended that the Camerons’ request for payment for three years’ worth of services (from 1996 through 1999) was barred by MCL 500.3145(1), which, ACIA argued, only allows the Camerons to recover for services that were rendered in the year before their 2002 lawsuit was filed. The Camerons argued that the one-year-back rule was tolled in this case by MCL 600.5851(1) of the Revised Judicature Act, which, in certain circumstances, grants a person who is under 18 years old when a claim accrues additional time to bring “an action under this act.” The Camerons maintained that this tolling statute applied and that, as a result, they were not bound by the one-year-back rule. The trial court denied ACIA’s motion for summary disposition and instead entered judgment in the Camerons’ favor, awarding them $182,500. In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed. It held that, for causes of action arising after October 1, 1993 (the effective date of the current version of MCL 600.5851(1)), the one-year-back rule applies because no-fault lawsuits are not “an action under this act” within the meaning of the tolling statute. The Camerons appealed. The Supreme Court heard oral argument on October 18, 2005, and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs “on the issue whether the provisions of MCL 600.5851(1) apply to the ‘one year back rule’ of MCL 500.3145(1)” and to appear for additional argument in April 2006.
Top of Page
|
