If they had already been suing these people for returning a premium because of some other breach, sure, you've got your time. But you don't have that here. . . . That's the court's opinion on this. This Court reviews a circuit court's grant of summary disposition de novo. Whether a cause of action is barred by the statute of limitations is a question of law that is reviewed under the same standard.
Plaintiffs present two distinct arguments to preserve their claims.
In other words, plaintiffs argue, the Legislature intended that 8124 always give a liquidator more time to bring a claim on behalf of the liquidating insurer, and the section does not itself serve as a separate statute of limitations. We disagree with each of plaintiffs' arguments and do not find that any of the suggested alternative theories of recovery apply to plaintiffs' claims. Initially we reject plaintiffs' argument that this statute is merely a tolling provision that allows two years to be added to any other applicable statute of limitations. The primary goal of judicial interpretation of statutes is to ascertain and give effect to the intent of the Legislature. The Legislature is presumed to have intended the meaning it plainly expressed.