Clay v. Doe
311 Mich. App. 359
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On April 18, 2011, Willie Clay slipped and fell while boarding a SMART (Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation) bus and later sought no-fault benefits.
- Clay’s no-fault claim was received by SMART’s insurance administrator 78 days after the incident (July 5, 2011).
- Clay filed a negligence suit in Macomb Circuit Court on March 20, 2013 against SMART and an unnamed driver alleging the driver’s sudden acceleration caused the fall.
- SMART moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7)/(C)(8)/(C)(10), arguing Clay failed to provide the written 60-day notice required by MCL 124.419 and that his no-fault application did not satisfy that statute, per Atkins v SMART.
- The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), finding Clay did not serve written notice on the authority within 60 days; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins should be applied retroactively to bar Clay’s claim | Atkins postdated Clay’s injury, so it should not apply to his case | Judicial decisions are generally retroactive; Atkins interprets MCL 124.419 and should apply | Atkins applies retroactively; retroactive application does not produce injustice here, so Atkins controls |
| Whether mailing an application for no-fault benefits to SMART’s insurer satisfies the 60‑day "written notice" requirement of MCL 124.419 | Clay mailed a no-fault benefits claim and contends that constitutes written notice under MCL 124.419 | A claim for first‑party no-fault benefits is not equivalent to written notice of a third‑party tort claim required by MCL 124.419 | Mailing a no-fault benefits application 78 days after the incident did not satisfy MCL 124.419; claim dismissed |
| Whether the mailbox rule applies to toll or satisfy MCL 124.419’s service requirement | Mailbox rule should govern and deem the notice timely | Statute requires service upon the authority within 60 days; mailbox rule is inconsistent with statute and not supported | Mailbox rule does not apply; statute’s plain language requires service on the authority within 60 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Atkins v. SMART, 492 Mich 707 (Michigan Supreme Court 2012) (holding an application for first‑party no‑fault benefits does not satisfy MCL 124.419’s written‑notice requirement for third‑party tort claims)
- Nuculovic v. Hill, 287 Mich App 58 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (interpreting MCL 124.419’s service and notice requirements)
- Pohutski v. City of Allen Park, 465 Mich 675 (Michigan Supreme Court) (framework for limiting retroactivity of judicial decisions)
- Paul v. Wayne County Dept. of Pub. Servs., 271 Mich App 617 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (general principle that judicial decisions are given full retroactive effect)
- Quinn v. People, 305 Mich App 484 (Michigan Court of Appeals) (factors to consider when restricting retroactivity)