On February 19, 2008, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a unanimous, published opinion, holding that a child’s injury claim against her insurance comapny is not time barred. In  Klida v. Farm Bureau Ins. et al., ___ Mich App. ____, ___ NW2d___   (2008) the Court held that the Michigan statute which tolls the time limitations period until a minor’s 19th birthday (MCL 600.5851), applies to all civil claims, including claims based on statute, common law, or contract.

 In Klida, supra the plaintiff, Katie Klida, was seriously injured in a Michigan car accident when she was fifteen years old. At that time, she was insured under an insurance  policy with the Defendant Farm Bureau Insurance Co. which provided coverage for underinsured motorist benefits (insurance benefits that cover an injured person when they are injured by someone who’s liability insurance coverage is inadequate to fully compensate the person for his or her injuries).

Shortly after the Katie’s 18th birthday, she brought a lawsuit against Farm Bureau to recover underinsured motorist benefits. Farm Bureau filed a motion to dismiss her case, arguing that her claim was untimely because of a one-year limitations provision in their insurance contract. The trial court held that Katie’s claim was protected by the one-year tolling provision of §5851, and denied Farm Bureau’s motion to dismiss.  Farm Bureau appealed and the Michigan Court of Appeals held that the trial court properly concluded that Katie’s claim was timely.The Court held that the purpose of statutes tolling the period of limitations for persons to whom a legal disability is attributed “is to allow protected classes of persons an opportunity to be made whole once their disabilities have been removed.”The Court was mindful of the law which holds that contracts should be interpreted according to their plain terms. However, the Court eloquently stated that: 

 “[C]ontracts may also not grant a right and then burden that right with a condition that cannot be met. Minors whose right of action accrues and expires, without legal proceedings, while they are laboring under their disability are permanently precluded, through no fault of their own, from exercising their legal rights under the contract in violation of the clear public policy that such minors are to be protected.”

            The Klida, supra decision is an intellectually honest and cogent opinion that protects the rights of injured children and incapacitated adults, while at the same time adhering to the tenets of statutory interpretation.  The lawyers at Buckfire & Buckfire P.C.  handles Michigan car accident cases involving these types of issues.  Please feel free to contact us to discuss your case.

Comments(0) | Permalink | Trackback |  Print This Post |  Email This Post

In recent years, Michigan car accident victims have had their cases dismissed due in large part to the Michigan Supreme Court’s misinterpretation of the Michigan No-Fault law in Kreiner v Fischer, 471 Mich 109; 683 NW2d 611 (2004).  These cases have become known as “Kreiner Casualties” because many people with very serious injuries, (e.g. broken bones requiring surgery), have had their cases dismissed before they even get to a jury. 

In Stevenson v. Allstate, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, decided February 12, 2008 [Docket No. 275501], the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld yet another dismissal of  an injured person’s case involving serious back injuries sustained as a result of an auto accident.  In that case, the Plaintiff was a sergeant in the United States Air Force.  As a result of the accident she sustained an injury to her lower back, which included a bulging disc in her lumbar spine.  She required several months of injections and therapy. Moreover, for a year and a half following the accident Sergeant Stevenson was unable to meet the Air Force’s physical testing requirements which resulted in her losing  at least $ 78,000 in potential income, a two year delay in a job promotion and the loss of valuable training time. Nonetheless, the Court stated that her injuries did not meet the No-Fault threshold of “serious impairment of body function” because her injuries did not substantially affect her ability to lead her normal life.  In making this determination, the Court applied the standards set forth in Kreiner.   

Unfortunately, Sergeant Stevenson’s case is only one in a long line of cases where injured people with serious injuries have been denied their day in court because of the Kreiner decision.

Comments(2) | Permalink | Trackback |  Print This Post |  Email This Post