The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled that a 2019 amendment to the state’s no-fault insurance statute, which introduced a tolling provision to extend the time for recovering personal injury protection (PIP) benefits, does not apply retroactively. In a decision issued April 1, 2025, the court held that the amendment to MCL 500.3145(3) cannot revive claims that accrued before its effective date.
The case, Spine Specialists of Michigan PC v MemberSelect Insurance Company, arose after Jeremy Woods, who was injured in a car accident in January 2017, received treatment from Spine Specialists of Michigan PC in April and May 2019. Woods was insured under a no-fault policy issued by MemberSelect Insurance Company. He assigned his right to collect PIP benefits for that treatment to Spine Specialists.
The services at issue included an office visit on April 15, 2019, a spinal fusion surgery with laminectomy and discectomy on April 20, 2019 (billed at $118,800), and a follow-up visit on May 6, 2019. Spine Specialists sought reimbursement from MemberSelect, which refused payment. The provider filed suit on September 21, 2020—more than a year after the services were rendered.
MemberSelect moved for summary disposition, arguing the claim was barred under the "one-year-back rule" in MCL 500.3145, which prevents recovery of PIP benefits for losses incurred more than one year before the lawsuit is filed. Spine Specialists argued that the 2019 amendment, which tolls the one-year-back period from the time a specific claim is submitted until the insurer formally denies it, should apply to their claim. The amendment became effective on June 11, 2019.
The Macomb Circuit Court granted MemberSelect’s motion for services rendered prior to June 11, 2019, finding those claims time-barred, and denied the motion for services rendered after that date. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court granted oral argument to address whether the tolling provision applied to claims that had accrued before the amendment took effect.
Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement concluded that MCL 500.3145(3) does not apply retroactively. The court emphasized that PIP benefits accrue under MCL 500.3110(4) when the expense is incurred—that is, when medical treatment is provided—not when the insurer denies a claim or when a lawsuit is filed. Because Woods incurred the expenses in April and May 2019, before the amendment's effective date, the claim accrued under the pre-amendment statute.
The court held that the 2019 amendment introduced new substantive obligations for insurers, including the duty to formally deny claims to stop tolling, and that such obligations cannot be imposed retroactively without clear legislative intent. The Legislature provided no express language indicating that the tolling provision should apply to claims that had already accrued.
Justice Elizabeth Welch concurred in the judgment only, arguing that the court should have applied the reasoning from Andary v USAA Casualty Insurance Co, a 2023 decision she authored. In Andary, the court held that no-fault rights vest at the time of the accident. Welch agreed that Spine Specialists could not benefit from the tolling provision but disagreed with the majority's reasoning, which she found inconsistent with Andary. Justice Kimberly Thomas did not participate because the case was submitted before she joined the court.
This ruling confirms that Michigan’s tolling provision under MCL 500.3145(3) applies only to claims that accrue on or after June 11, 2019. The decision is significant for insurers because it preserves the pre-reform framework for older claims and limits retroactive liability. It also underscores the importance of accrual dates in no-fault PIP disputes and reinforces that changes to statutory benefit structures require clear legislative direction to apply retroactively.
For providers, the case highlights the importance of understanding claim timing and statutory limitations when pursuing assigned PIP benefits. For insurers, it affirms the protection of the one-year-back rule against revived claims from pre-reform treatment dates.
