Grove & Associates Michigan auto injury and no-fault law
Menu
Call 313.733.1204

Michigan car accident deadline calculator

Every Michigan crash starts several clocks at once. Enter the date of your crash to see the dates that matter, then read how each one works.

Your Michigan crash deadlines

Showing an example date. Enter yours.

  1. Notice to your no-fault insurer. Give it written notice of the injury within one year of the crash, unless it has already paid you PIP benefits (MCL 500.3145(1)). –
  2. One-year-back limit on unpaid benefits. A lawsuit can recover only bills and losses incurred in the year before it is filed. The period is tolled from a specific claim until the insurer formally denies it, if you pursue the claim with reasonable diligence. After the denial, the clock picks up where it stopped (MCL 500.3145(2)–(3)). Rolling
  3. Three-year benefit period. Wage loss and replacement services cover only the first three years after the crash (MCL 500.3107(1)(b)–(c)). Medical benefits have no such end date. –
  4. Lawsuit against the at-fault driver (general rule). Three years from the crash (MCL 600.5805(2)). A government vehicle or road defect claim can require written notice within 120 days or another short period. A minor, a death or other facts can also change the deadline. –

These are general rules under MCL 500.3145, 500.3107 and 600.5805, counted from the crash date, not advice about your case. If a deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, do not count on extra days; act before the date shown.

One year to give notice

Under MCL 500.3145(1), you must give your no-fault insurer written notice of your injury within one year after the crash, or file a lawsuit within that year, unless the insurer has already paid you benefits. The notice should name you, give the date and place of the crash, and describe your injuries.

One year back on every bill

Even with timely notice, a lawsuit can recover only expenses incurred in the year before it is filed. A bill from 14 months ago may be gone. The 2019 amendments added an important pause: the period stops running from the date you submit a specific claim until the insurer formally denies it. Tolling only helps a claim that is pursued with reasonable diligence.

Three years for wage loss, household help and the at-fault driver

Wage loss and replacement services are only payable for the first three years after the crash. The same three years is the deadline to sue the at-fault driver for pain and suffering and excess economic losses (MCL 600.5805), and to bring a mini-tort claim for vehicle damage.

Shorter deadlines

  • Defective roads and government vehicles: written notice can be due within 120 days, depending on the agency.
  • Dram shop claims against a bar that over-served the driver: written notice within 120 days of hiring a lawyer, and a two-year lawsuit deadline.
  • Uninsured or underinsured motorist claims: deadlines are set by the policy itself and can be shorter than three years.

The calculator applies general rules. It does not account for tolling, minority, insurer payments or claims against government agencies.

Questions people ask us

What is the one-year-back rule?

In a lawsuit for PIP benefits, you can recover only expenses incurred within one year before the lawsuit is filed. Since the 2019 reform, the period is paused while a specific claim is pending with the insurer, until the insurer formally denies it.

What if a government vehicle or a road defect was involved?

Claims against the state, a county road commission or a city can require written notice within as little as 120 days. Call a lawyer immediately in those cases.

Does the deadline change for a child?

For a minor, some deadlines are extended until after the child turns 18, but the rules are not simple and should not be relied on without advice.

Get a free case review

Tell us what happened and we will call you back. Phones are answered 24/7 if you would rather talk now. What you send is kept confidential.

Prefer to talk now? Call 313.733.1204.

Call 313.733.1204 for a free case review