A Michigan appeals court has stepped in to clarify who should decide if old no-fault arbitration demands are too late, siding with arbitrators instead of trial judges. This ruling breathes new life into a long-standing dispute involving Citizens Insurance Company of America and the Estate of Abdel M. Bazzy.
The legal backstory dates to a car accident in Dearborn on May 26, 2007, where Mr. Bazzy was injured. Citizens was the no-fault insurer responsible but reportedly only paid a portion of the benefits claimed. Bazzy initially sued Citizens in 2008. The parties agreed to settle through arbitration, signing a written agreement around March 2009 that detailed the arbitrators’ role in deciding the case. However, despite some early legal and medical proceedings, the case stalled for years.
Sadly, Mr. Bazzy passed away in 2017, and his son took over as the estate’s representative. Several of Bazzy’s children filed claims for attendant care services provided after the accident, but Citizens did not respond to these claims. After some attorney changes and long delays, the estate sought in January 2023 to force arbitration.
Citizens pushed back, saying the six-year statute of limitations for contract enforcement had expired, and that the long wait, with key people now unavailable, made arbitration unfair. The trial court agreed and dismissed the case, ruling that the arbitration agreement could no longer be enforced due to the delay.
But the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed this decision in December 2025. The court said issues like the statute of limitations and laches – which means unreasonable delay – should be decided by the arbitrators, not judges. The court emphasized that while it’s the court’s job to confirm an arbitration agreement exists, questions about whether that agreement is being enforced in time are for the arbitrators to sort out.
This decision is important for insurers and claims professionals in Michigan. It means if there’s a valid arbitration agreement, courts will usually let arbitrators decide if the delay in arbitration or claims is too long. Defenses like timing and fairness are still valid but have to be raised during arbitration, not used by courts to block arbitration from starting.
The case goes back to trial for next steps, with the appeals court sending it back for further handling consistent with its ruling. This should help ensure arbitration agreements in no-fault disputes are honored and that issues about timing get addressed where they belong – in arbitration.