Brian Zezula v. Nina Brown, 368261

Brian Zezula suffered sewage overflow in his home after Nina Brown hired DTE, which subcontracted excavation to Kaltz, resulting in a punctured sewer line.
Kaltz alleged Independence Township, responsible for marking utility lines under the MISS DIG Act, failed to properly mark the facilities.
Zezula amended his complaint to include Independence Township as a defendant, following Kaltz's claim that the Township was at fault.
Independence Township moved for summary disposition, claiming governmental immunity and insufficient pre-suit notice from Zezula.
The trial court denied summary disposition, holding that immunity did not apply under the MISS DIG Act, but left the notice issue unresolved for further briefing.
The Township appealed the immunity ruling; the appellate court affirms, remanding for further proceedings on unresolved factual and procedural issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Immunity under MISS DIG Act	Township not immune due to MISS DIG	GTLA provides immunity; MISS DIG does not abrogate	Township not immune under MISS DIG Act
Amendment for sewage disposal system event exception	Should be allowed to amend, facts in dispute	Exception does not apply to facts	Allowed to amend, questions of fact remain
Compliance with pre-suit notice requirements	(Not addressed in record at this stage)	Zezula did not provide required notice	Issue reserved for lower court, not decided
Scope of statutory exceptions to governmental immunity	MISS DIG creates a broad exception	Exceptions should be narrowly construed	Exception under MISS DIG is broad and applies

Rowland v. Washtenaw County Rd Comm’n, 477 Mich 197 (explains broad governmental immunity and exceptions)
Odom v. Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 (details procedure and burden for immunity under GTLA)
Bosanic v. Motz Dev, Inc, 277 Mich App 277 (analyzes requirements under the sewage disposal system event exception)
In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 (defines statutory interpretation principles for tort liability)