Transportation Law Hub

The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued an important decision in Spine Specialists of Michigan PC v. MemberSelect Insurance Company, clarifying how the 2019 amendments to Michigan’s No-Fault statute apply to Personal Injury Protection (PIP) claims.  

The dispute centered on whether the tolling provision added in 2019 to MCL 500.3145(3) could be applied retroactively to revive PIP claims that had accrued before the amendment took effect.  

Providers argued that the new tolling rule extended the timeframe for asserting claims, even for treatments and injuries that predated the reform. Insurers countered that retroactive application would upset settled rights and expand liability in ways the Michigan Legislature never intended. 

The Supreme Court ultimately held that the 2019 tolling amendment does not apply retroactively. In other words, for claims tied to treatment or injuries that occurred before the amendment’s effective date, the prior law still governs, including its statute of limitations and the one-year-back rule. The Supreme Court emphasized that there was no clear legislative intent to make the tolling provision retroactive and applying it backward in time would interfere with vested rights under existing contracts and statutes. The decision makes clear that the timing of an injury and treatment dictates which version of the No-Fault Act applies. 

Medical providers cannot rely on the 2019 tolling rules to extend deadlines for older claims, meaning that services rendered before the reforms remain subject to the older, stricter time limits. That makes it essential to know exactly when a claim accrued and to ensure that assignments of rights are proper. The decision preserves the ability to use the prior statute of limitations as a defense against claims tied to pre-amendment treatments, reducing exposure to retroactive liability. 

As such, rights under Michigan’s No-Fault system are locked in at the time of the accident. While reforms may benefit future claimants, they cannot automatically rescue old claims unless lawmakers expressly say so. This means that claimants injured before the reforms cannot expect the 2019 tolling provision to give them more time, even if their claims would have been viable under the new law. 

Ultimately, Spine Specialists highlights the importance of timing in No-Fault cases. The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that statutory amendments generally apply prospectively unless the Legislature clearly directs otherwise.  

It also signals that disputes over effective dates and accrual timelines will continue to play a large role in Michigan No-Fault litigation. The key takeaway is that understanding when a claim arises is just as important as knowing what benefits are available.