Mary Beth Kelly, J.
We granted defendant Auto Club Insurance Association’s bypass application for leave to appeal in this case to determine whether the minority/insanity tolling provision of MCL 600.5851(1) applies to toll the one-year-back rule in MCL [203]*203500.3145(1) of the no-fault act. The one-year-back rule is designed to limit the amount of benefits recoverable under the no-fault act to those losses occurring no more than one year before an action is brought. Plaintiff here is seeking to recover no-fault benefits for losses dating back 32 years before she brought her action. In denying defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition, the circuit court relied on Univ of Mich Regents v Titan Ins Co1 to hold that the minority/insanity tolling provision tolls the one-year-back rule. In Regents, this Court held that a saving provision that tolls a statute of limitations also prevents application of the one-year-back rule. Regents overruled Cameron v Auto Club Ins Ass’n2 and Liptow v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co,3 which had held that the saving provisions at issue only tolled a statute of limitations, not statutes limiting damages.
We once again hold that the minority/insanity tolling provision, which addresses only when an action may be brought, does not preclude the application of the one-year-back rule, which separately limits the amount of benefits that can be recovered. These distinctions were recognized in Michigan law both in Cameron as well as several decisions of this Court that predate Cameron. Yet this Court’s decision in Regents conflated these distinct concepts in order to effectuate what the Regents majority believed was a broader social good served by expanding the right to recover benefits beyond those allowed by law. We recognize the necessity for, and value of, stability in the law and take no pleasure in overruling a precedent of recent vintage by this Court. But Regents itself simply [204] failed to apply our then recent decision in Cameron, resulting in a decision that patently failed to enforce the requirements of the statutes that it interpreted. Because the holding in Regents contravened the Legislature’s clear and unambiguous language in MCL 500.3145(1) and MCL 600.5851(1), Regents is overruled and we reinstate Cameron. Accordingly, we remand this case to the circuit court for entry of an order granting defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition on the basis of the one-year-back rule.
I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
In June 1977, then 17-year-old plaintiff, Doreen Joseph, was involved in an automobile accident in which she suffered traumatic brain injury and quadriplegia. At the time of the accident, plaintiff had automobile insurance coverage through the Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance Exchange, defendant’s predecessor. Defendant later assumed responsibility for paying plaintiffs personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits. Since the date of plaintiffs injury, defendant has paid more than $4 million in PIP benefits for plaintiffs care.
On February 27, 2009, plaintiff filed a complaint seeking additional PIP benefits for allegedly unpaid case-management services provided by plaintiffs family members. The period for which plaintiff seeks recovery dates back to the date of plaintiffs accident in 1977. Defendant moved for partial summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), arguing that the one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1) barred plaintiffs claim with respect to benefits sought for any period more than one year before the February 27, 2009, commencement date of plaintiffs action. Plaintiff responded that her “insanity” over the [205] past 32 years had operated to toll the one-year-back rule pursuant to the minority/insanity tolling provision of MCL 600.5851(1)4
The circuit court denied defendant’s motion for partial summary disposition, citing Regents for the proposition that the minority/insanity tolling provision tolls the one-year-back rule and, thus, if plaintiff is determined to be “insane,” her recoveiy will not be limited to the year immediately preceding the filing of her complaint. Defendant filed an interlocutory application for leave to appeal in the Court of Appeals and then filed a bypass application for leave to appeal in this Court, arguing that the minority/insanity tolling provision does not apply to the one-year-back rule and that Regents was wrongly decided. We entered orders staying the circuit court proceedings5 and granting defendant’s bypass application to consider whether Regents was correctly decided.6
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court reviews de novo a circuit court’s decision whether to grant or deny summary disposition.7 Similarly, we review de novo issues of statutory interpretation as questions of law.8 Our primary goal when interpreting statutes is to discern the intent of the Legislature.9 To do so, we focus on the best indicator of that intent, the [206] language of the statute itself.10 The words used by the Legislature are given their common and ordinary meaning.11 If the statutory language is unambiguous, we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning that it clearly expressed, and further construction is neither required nor permitted.12
Defendant moved for partial summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Because a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the complaint, the circuit court must consider the affidavits, pleadings, depositions, admissions, and other evidence submitted by the parties, MCR 2.116(G)(5), in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion.13 If the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.14
III. ANALYSIS
A. THE ONE-YEAR-BACK RULE AND THE MINORITY/INSANITY TOLLING PROVISION
This case requires that we again interpret the limitations on recovery of PIP benefits set forth in the no-fault act. The relevant statutory provision of the no-fault act, MCL 500.3145(1), provides in pertinent part:
An action for recovery of personal protection insurance benefits payable under this chapter for accidental bodily [207] injury may not be commenced later than 1 year after the date of the accident causing the injury unless written notice of injury as provided herein has been given to the insurer within 1 year after the accident or unless the insurer has previously made a payment of personal protection insurance benefits for the injury. If the notice has been given or a payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within 1 year after the most recent allowable expense, work loss or survivor’s loss has been incurred. However, the claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.[15]
As early as 1984, this Court explained that this statutory provision contains separate and distinct limitations periods that relate both to the timing in which an action may be brought and the damages that may be recovered.16 Specifically, we have noted that MCL 500.3145(1)
contains two limitations on the time for filing suit and one limitation on the period for which benefits may be recovered:
“(1) An action for personal protection insurance [PIP] benefits must be commenced not later than one year after the date of accident, unless the insured gives written notice of injury or the insurer previously paid [PIP] benefits for the injury.
“(2) If notice has been given or payment has been made, the action may be commenced at any time within one year after the most recent loss was incurred.
“(3) Recovery is limited to losses incurred during the one year preceding commencement of the action.”[17]
[208] Accordingly, a person filing a claim for PIP benefits must do so within a year of the accident unless the insured gives written notice of injury or previously received PIP benefits from the insurer. If notice was given or payment was made, the action can be commenced within one year of the most recent loss. In any case, though, recovery is limited only to losses that have been incurred during the year before the filing of the action.
The final limitation provided in MCL 500.3145(1) is the limitation on damages known as the one-year-back rule. In Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, we discussed the significance of the legislative distinction between statutes of limitations and provisions that limit damages, noting that
although a no-fault action to recover PIP benefits may be filed more than one year after the accident and more than one year after a particular loss has been incurred (provided that notice of injury has been given to the insurer or the insurer has previously paid PIP benefits for the injury), § 3145(1) nevertheless limits recovery in that action to those losses incurred within the one year preceding the filing of the action.[18]
Our Legislature has also independently established, in the Revised Judicature Act (RJA),19 a general tolling provision in order to aid those who are minors or legally insane. The minority/insanity tolling provision of MCL 600.5851(1) extends the time for filing suit by tolling an otherwise applicable statute of limitations.20 MCL 600.5851(1) provides in relevant part:
[209] [I]f the person first entitled to make an entry or bring an action under this act is under 18 years of age or insane at the time the claim accrues, the person or those claiming under the person shall have 1 year after the disability is removed through death or otherwise, to make the entry or bring the action although the period of limitations has run.
Notably, by its unambiguous terms, this provision concerns when a minor or person suffering from insanity may “make the entry or bring the action,” and the provision is entirely silent with regard to the amount of damages recoverable once an action has been brought.21
B. CAMERON AND ITS PROGENY
We first considered the interplay between the one-year-back rule and the minority/insanity tolling provision in Cameron 22 In Cameron, the plaintiffs’ minor son sustained a closed head injury when an automobile struck his bicycle in 1996. Six years later, in 2002, the plaintiffs filed suit against their no-fault insurer to recover PIP benefits for attendant-care services rendered from 1996 to 1999. The plaintiffs argued that the minority/insanity tolling provision applied to toll the one-year-back rule, rendering recoverable the losses incurred between 1996 and 1999. We disagreed, holding that the minority/insanity tolling provision does not operate to toll the one-year-back rule. We explained in Cameron:
By its unambiguous terms, MCL 600.5851(1) concerns when a minor or person suffering from insanity may “make the entry or bring the action.” It does not pertain to the [210] damages recoverable once an action has been brought. MCL 600.5851(1) then is irrelevant to the damages-limiting one-year-back provision of MCL 500.3145(1).[23]
That is,
the minority/insanity tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1), by its plain terms, only addresses when an action may be brought. Therefore, it does not apply to toll the one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1) because that provision does not concern when an action may be brought but, instead, limits the amount of PIP benefits a person injured in an automobile accident may recover.[24]
In reaching this conclusion, we overruled the Court of Appeals’ decision in Geiger v Detroit Auto Inter-Ins Exch,25 which held that MCL 600.5851(1) applies to toll the one-year-back rule.26 The Geiger panel reasoned [211] that reading the statute in a contrary fashion would “severely limit the utility” of the minority/insanity tolling provision “and could deprive a person of benefits to which he would otherwise be rightfully entitled.”27 This Court held that Geiger’s conclusion was not supported by the statutory texts and contravened the Legislature’s unambiguous directives, compelling its overruling. As Cameron explained:
[W]e must assume that the thing the Legislature wants is best understood by reading what it said. Because what was said in MCL 500.3145(1) and MCL 600.5851(1) is clear, no less clear is the policy. Damages are only allowed for one year back from the date the lawsuit is filed. We are enforcing the statutes as written. While some may question the wisdom of the Legislature’s capping damages in this fashion, it is unquestionably a power that the Legislature has under our Constitution.[28]
After our decision in Cameron, the Court of Appeals in Liptow29 applied Cameron’s reasoning to hold that separate tolling provisions for state political subdivisions30 do not preclude the application of the one-year-back rule. The panel reasoned that the plain statutory [212] text of MCL 600.5821(4) indicates that the Legislature intended to exempt the state from statutes of limitations when bringing an action to recover public funds. As in Cameron, the Court recognized that the one-year-back rule is not a statute of limitations, but a damages-limiting provision. Accordingly, because MCL 600.5821(4) does not address damages limitations, the Court of Appeals determined that it has no effect on the one-year-back rule.31 Thus, Liptow held that while a political subdivision may bring an action at any time pursuant to MCL 600.5821(4), it cannot recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than one year before the date on which the action was commenced.
C. REGENTS
Four years after Cameron and Liptow, in Regents, this Court again considered whether a saving provision tolling a statute of limitations similarly tolls the one-year-back rule.32 In Regents, the plaintiffs brought an action seeking payment from the defendant insurer for the full cost of medical treatment provided to the defendant’s insured who had been treated at the university’s hospital following an automobile accident. The circuit court held that the one-year-back rule barred the plaintiffs from recovering any portion of the loss incurred more than one year before commencement of the action, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. In a narrowly divided decision, this Court reversed the decisions of the lower courts and overruled the recent decisions in Cameron and Liptow, holding, in part, that the minority/insanity tolling provision does, in fact, toll the one-year-back rule. The Regents Court, essentially adopting the dissenting position from Cameron, held that “the ‘action’ and ‘claim’ preserved by [the [213] minority/insanity tolling provision] include the right to collect damages” because “the right to bring an action would be a hollow one indeed if a plaintiff could not recover damages.”33 According to Regents, the one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1) is inapplicable to a statute that preserves a plaintiffs right to bring an action. That is, because MCL 600.5851(1) preserves the rights of minors and insane persons by granting them one year after their disabilities have been removed to bring their civil actions, MCL 600.5851(1) precludes application of the one-year-back rule.
Three justices strongly dissented from the decision to overrule Cameron and erase the long-recognized distinction between statutes of limitations and the damages-limiting provision of the no-fault statute. The dissenting justices explained that because the one-year-back rule “serves only as a limitation on the recovery of benefits” and “does not define a period within which a claimant may file a cause of action,” the one-year-back rule “lies outside the scope of what is affected by the RJA’s minority/insanity tolling provision.”34 By holding to the contrary, the dissenting justices concluded that the majority had failed to enforce as written the unambiguous language of the one-year-back rule, and had attempted instead to “discern the purpose of the statute from something other than its actual language.”35
D. REGENTS WAS WRONGLY DECIDED
We believe that the ruling in Regents was erroneous for the simple reason that the statutory texts of MCL 500.3145(1) and MCL 600.5851(1) plainly do not sup[214] port it. MCL 600.5851(1) gives minors and insane persons one year after the removal of their disabilities “to make the entry or bring the action.” By its very terms, the minority/insanity tolling provision is a timing mechanism specifying when a minor or insane person may bring his or her claim; it places no limitation on, and makes no reference to, the amount of damages that can be recovered after the action has been brought. The one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1), on the other hand, forecloses a claimant from recovering “benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.” By its very terms, then, the one-year-back rule is a damages-limiting provision because it limits a claimant’s recovery to those losses incurred during the year before the filing of the action.
By concluding that the minority/insanity tolling provision of MCL 600.5851(1) operates to toll the one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1), Regents failed to recognize the critical distinction between having the general right to commence an action and the limitation on the right to recover no-fault benefits for losses occurring more than one year before the filing of the action. Indeed, Regents impermissibly interpreted the phrase “bring the action” in MCL 600.5851(1) as conferring on a claimant the right to “bring the action and recover an unlimited amount of damages,” an interpretation which cannot be extracted from the plain and unambiguous statutory text. The dissenting justices in Regents recognized this distinction, contrasting the one-year-back rule, which provides that the claimant “may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced,” with MCL 600.5821(4), which provides that an action by the state or one of its political [215] subdivisions “may be brought at any time without limitation.” The dissenting justices in Regents properly observed:
[W]hen these two provisions are read together, it is clear that while a political subdivision may bring an action at any time, it cannot recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced. In other words, MCL 600.5821(4), which pertains only to when an action may be commenced, does not preclude the application of the one-year-back rule, which only limits how much can be recovered after the action has been commenced.[36]
This interpretation is merely an extension of the same legal rationale applied in Cameron, in which the Court distinguished the plain language of the one-year-back rule from the plain language of the minority/insanity tolling provision.
Again, the rules of statutory interpretation mandate that we give effect to the Legislature’s intent, relying on the plain language of the no-fault statute itself. If the statutory language is unambiguous, we must presume that the Legislature intended the meaning it clearly expressed and further construction is neither required nor permitted.37 As is evident from its holding, the interpretation advanced by Regents superseded the Legislature’s explicit intent that recovery of PIP benefits be limited to losses incurred within one year before the date on which an action is filed. The statutory provision containing the one-year-back rule employs plain, clear, and simple language. The minority/insanity tolling provision sets forth an equally simple concept, tolling the time in which an action may be commenced after a person’s disability is removed. This tolling [216] provision, however, is silent regarding the amount of damages a claimant may recover and, accordingly, there is no support for the conclusion that the minority/insanity tolling statute precludes application of the no-fault act’s one-year-back rule. Because Regents reached such a conclusion, it was wrongly decided.
Application of the Regents Court’s interpretation of the one-year-back rule to this case illustrates how that decision defeats the very purpose of the rule. Under Regents, plaintiff would be permitted to recover PIP benefits for those losses incurred during the 32 years predating the filing of her action on February 27, 2009, in addition to those losses incurred after that date and continuing for the remainder of her life. Permitting recovery in that manner ignores the plain language of the one-year-back rule, which limits plaintiffs recovery to those losses incurred within one year before February 27, 2009, while still allowing additional recovery for all losses incurred after that date. Although the minority/insanity tolling provision may certainly toll myriad statutory provisions that contain a statute of limitations, it cannot toll the one-year-back rule of MCL 500.3145(1) because the one-year-back rule is not a statute of limitations in that it does not limit the period of time within which a claimant may file an action; rather, the one-year-back rule places a limitation on the amount of damages a claimant is entitled to recover. Furthermore, the one-year-back rule does not serve those purposes typically associated with a statute of limitations because it does not operate to cut off a claim or bar the action or the recovery; it simply limits the compensation available to the claimant.38 Because the no-fault act’s one-year-back rule and the RJA’s [217] minority/insanity tolling provision serve manifestly different purposes and function independently of each other, the one-year-back rule is not the subject of tolling under the minority/insanity tolling provision. And this proper interpretation comports both with the plain language of the statute and the legislative purpose of keeping insurance premiums at affordable rates while [218] providing victims of motor vehicle accidents assured, adequate, and prompt reparation for certain economic losses.39
E. STARE DECISIS
Having concluded that Regents was wrongly decided, we must decide whether stare decisis nevertheless compels our adherence to its holding. The test for determining whether stare decisis compels continued adherence to a precedent is set forth in Robinson v Detroit40 and calls for us to examine, among other factors, “(a) whether the earlier decision was wrongly decided, and (b) whether overruling such decision would work an undue hardship because of reliance interests or expectations that have arisen.”41
First, as discussed previously, Regents was wrongly decided for the simple reason that it ignored the Legislature’s clear and unambiguous directives in MCL 500.3145(1) and MCL 600.5851(1) by failing to enforce these statutory provisions as written. Rather than grounding its analysis on the proper and historically accepted interpretation of the one-year-back rule, the Regents decision appears to have focused on the majority’s concern that a plaintiff allowed to bring a suit under the minority/insanity tolling provision would be precluded by the one-year-back rule from recovering all the damages that might otherwise be permitted outside [219] the no-fault context. However, it is the Legislature’s enactment of the no-fault act’s one-year-back rule that operates to limit the recovery of damages incurred more than one year before an action is commenced, not our interpretation of the minority/insanity tolling provision.
With regard to reliance interests, “the Court must ask whether the previous decision has become so embedded, so accepted, so fundamental, to everyone’s expectations that to change it would produce not just readjustments, but practical real-world dislocations.”42 In discussing this factor, the Regents Court explained: “Cameron is of recent vintage, having been decided a mere four years ago. Hence, reliance on its holding has been of limited duration.”43 Regents is of even more recent vintage than was Cameron, having been decided a mere 21 months ago. Certainly, Regents has not “become so embedded, so accepted, so fundamental, to everyone’s expectations that to change it would produce . . . practical real-world dislocations”44 such that reliance interests will be disrupted. While we view the duration of a decision from this Court as important, we believe the foremost indicator that reliance interests weigh in favor of overruling Regents is the plain language of the statutes because it is the unambiguous statutory text that guides the citizenry and their behavior. “This is the essence of the rule of law: to know in advance what the rules of society are.”45 As we have explained:
[I]f the words of the statute are clear, the actor should be able to expect, that is, rely, that they will be carried out by [220] all in society, including the courts. In fact, should a court confound those legitimate citizen expectations by misreading or misconstruing a statute, it is that court itself that has disrupted the reliance interest. When that happens, a subsequent court, rather than holding to the distorted reading because of the doctrine of stare decisis, should overrule the earlier court’s misconstruction. The reason for this is that the court in distorting the statute was engaged in a form of judicial usurpation that runs counter to the bedrock principle of American constitutionalism, i.e., that the lawmaking power is reposed in the people as reflected in the work of the Legislature, and, absent a constitutional violation, the courts have no legitimacy in overruling or nullifying the people’s representatives.[46]
Because Regents strayed considerably from the statutory language, it undermined the reliance interest that the people of this state have with regard to that language and with regard to a Court that is committed to upholding such language. As a result, it is this Court’s duty to restore such reliance interests by restoring the law to mean what its language plainly states — a no-fault “claimant may not recover benefits for any portion of the loss incurred more than 1 year before the date on which the action was commenced.”47
The one-year-back rule codifies an integral part of the legislative compromise that is the no-fault act, and invalidating that compromise will threaten the continued fiscal soundness of our no-fault system. Given that Michigan is the only state with a no-fault automobile-injury reparations scheme with mandatory, unlimited, lifetime medical benefits, the Legislature adopted a unique approach to defining the temporal limitations for filing suit without allowing open-ended liability or time-barring claims before they accrue. The Legislature [221] addressed this problem by enacting the one-year-back rule, which limits recovery to losses incurred within one year before suit was filed. Thus, the creation of MCL 500.3145(1) was the Legislature’s reasonable and simple approach to resolving the problem of allowing a reasonable amount of time for pursuing a claim while protecting the fiscal integrity of the no-fault system. However, under the Regents interpretation of the one-year-back rule, not only is a claimant permitted to recover those losses incurred after the date on which the action was filed, but recovery also extends to those losses incurred any number of years before the filing date. Permitting a claimant to recover all losses incurred both before and after an action is filed, without any limitation, would nullify this legislative compromise and render the no-fault system unsustainable.
For these reasons, we overrule Regents and “return the law, as is our duty, to what we believe the citizens of this state reading these statutes at the time of enactment would have understood [them] to mean.”48 We are mindful of the importance of stability and continuity in the law and approach with great caution a decision to overrule precedent, but to allow the interpretation of MCL 500.3145(1) and MCL 600.5851(1) set forth in Regents to stand would result in the endorsement of a decision that utterly failed to enforce the requirements of the very statutes it purported to interpret.
Because the plain and unambiguous language of MCL 500.3145(1) can only be interpreted as limiting the amount of PIP benefits recoverable to those losses incurred within one year before the date the lawsuit is filed, which was the same interpretation advanced by the Cameron majority, we reinstate our previous decision in Cameron.
[222] F. APPLICATION
In this case, plaintiff filed her complaint on February 27, 2009, seeking recovery of PIP benefits for losses dating back 32 years. While plaintiff contends that, in light of her alleged insanity, the minority/insanity tolling provision tolls the one-year-back rule, rendering any losses incurred from the date of plaintiffs 1977 accident recoverable, we conclude otherwise. The minority/insanity tolling provision of MCL 600.5851(1), which concerns when an action may be commenced, does not render inoperable the one-year-back rule, which only limits how much can be recovered after the action has been commenced. Consequently, the one-year-back rule does not fall within the purview of what is intended to be tolled by the minority/insanity tolling provision. Accordingly, plaintiffs recovery is limited to losses incurred on or after February 27, 2008.
IV CONCLUSION
The minority/insanity tolling provision in MCL 600.5851(1) does not apply to toll the one-year-back rule in MCL 500.3145(1) because the one-year-back rule is a damages-limiting provision and does not concern when an action may be brought. These two distinct statutory provisions serve different purposes and by their express language operate separately. Because the decision in Regents ignored the plain statutory directive, it is hereby overruled and Cameron is reinstated.49 Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the circuit court denying defendant’s motion for partial summary dispo[223] sition and remand this case to that court for entry of partial summary disposition in defendant’s favor.
YOUNG, C.J., and MarkmaN and ZAHRA, JJ., concurred with Mary Beth Kelly, J.
Contrary to the dissent, our conclusion that Cameron is “better reasoned” is not an altogether subjective determination. Instead, it is based on a straightforward reading of both Cameron and Geiger, which, even the dissent can hardly deny, would lead almost any reader to conclude that Cameron is focused principally on the statutory language in dispute, while Geiger is focused principally on policy considerations. [211] Because such statutory language constitutes the best indicator of legislative intent, we believe that Cameron is “better reasoned.” Although we appreciate that our dissenting colleagues are free to disagree with this assessment, judgments nonetheless must be made. And we have sought to exercise our own best judgment in assessing the precedents before us.
[217] There is no need for this Court to address the “absurd results” doctrine in this case because there is simply no result here that is absurd. Indeed, the dissent’s argument that this construction produces an absurd result was fully considered and rejected in Cameron. As reiterated by the dissenting justices in Regents, “ ‘[i]n choosing to make no-fault insurance compulsory for all motorists, the Legislature has made the registration and operation of a motor vehicle inexorably dependent on whether no-fault insurance is available at fair and equitable rates.’ ” Regents, 487 Mich at 346-347 (Markman, J., dissenting), quoting Shavers v Attorney General, 402 Mich 554, 599; 267 NW2d 72 (1978) (alteration in original). It therefore bears repeating that it is certainly quite possible that in a system that provides mandatory unlimited lifetime benefits, the Legislature intended to impose a limitation on recovery of no-fault benefits in order to make no-fault insurance affordable. This limitation is not only sensible, but necessary for the survival of the no-fault system.
Insofar as the dissent asserts that it “defies common sense” to think “[tjhat the Legislature wanted to grant a minor or insane person the right to prove his or her damages in a court of law while lacking any opportunity to be awarded them,” post at 225-226, we note that the statutory language plainly does not confer on a claimant a right to prove and recover an unlimited amount of damages. Instead, the plain language merely confers a right, under certain circumstances, to bring an action despite the period of limitations having expired. The dissent utterly fails to recognize that the one-year-back rule does not operate to preclude a claimant from recovering any damages; rather, a claimant will find himself or herself without any recovery as a result of the one-year-back rule’s operation only if the claimant has not suffered any losses within the one year immediately preceding the filing of the action. Contrary to the dissent, “that this result will occur ‘only’ in some circumstances,” post at 226 n 11, hardly constitutes our only response to its claim of “absurdity.” As previously explained, it is possible that the Legislature chose to impose a limitation on the recovery of no-fault benefits to ensure the financial integrity of the no-fault system. See also Regents, 487 Mich at 346-347 (Markman, J. dissenting).