Department of Environmental Quality v. Bp Plc
333864
| Mich. Ct. App. | Dec 12, 2017Background
- Michigan created the Underground Storage Tank Financial Assurance Fund to reimburse tank owners for cleanup costs; applicants had to certify compliance, nondiscovery before July 18, 1989, and disclose insurance coverage.
- The Fund stopped accepting new applications on June 29, 1995, but continued paying approved claims.
- In November 2010 the DEQ sent BP a letter reporting an investigation that identified allegedly false, misleading, or fraudulent Fund claims by BP, including double recovery via insurance.
- In September 2015 the DEQ sued BP for monetary damages, alleging fraudulent statements in Fund reimbursement applications.
- BP moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (C)(8), and MCR 2.112(B); the trial court denied the motion, and BP appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the DEQ's suit is barred by the 6-year statute of limitations (MCL 600.5813) | DEQ argued public policy exceptions, discovery rule, fraudulent concealment, statutory retroactivity, and that the action was in rem or otherwise not time-barred | BP argued the claim accrued when applications were submitted (no later than June 29, 1995) and the 6-year limitations period therefore expired long before DEQ sued | Held: The 6-year statute applies; DEQ's claims accrued by June 29, 1995; suit filed in 2015 is time-barred |
| Whether common-law discovery rule or discovery-phase litigation can postpone accrual | DEQ contended discovery-phase fact-finding could determine accrual date and toll limitations | BP argued statutory framework displaces the common-law discovery rule and accrual is fixed by statute unless fraudulent concealment applies | Held: Common-law discovery rule does not delay accrual; trial court erred to allow discovery to determine accrual |
| Whether the fraudulent-concealment toll (MCL 600.5855) saves DEQ's claim | DEQ said BP fraudulently concealed claims and DEQ did not discover them until after 2009/2010 | BP said DEQ knew or should have known by Nov 16, 2010 letter and DEQ failed to plead affirmative concealment acts sufficient to toll | Held: DEQ knew or should have known by Nov 16, 2010; even if tolling applied, DEQ waited more than two years to sue, so tolling fails |
| Whether exceptions (public policy, in rem action, MCL 600.5821(4) maintenance-care exception, or retroactivity of MCL 324.21548(2)) avoid limitations | DEQ invoked these exceptions to avoid the 6-year bar | BP argued none apply: statutes of limitations embody public policy; action is a personal action; maintenance-care exception is inapplicable; retroactivity does not revive barred claims | Held: None of DEQ's exceptions apply; limitations period governs and bars the suit |
Key Cases Cited
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (rejection of common-law discovery rule where statute provides accrual rules)
- City of Fraser v. Almeda Univ., 314 Mich. App. 79 (de novo review that statute of limitations bars claim)
- Detroit v. 19675 Hasse, 258 Mich. App. 438 (state subject to limitations for personal actions; distinction re actions in rem)
- Attorney General v. Harkins, 257 Mich. App. 564 (state subject to general limitations absent specific statutory exemption)
- Garg v. Macomb Co. Community Mental Health Servs., 472 Mich. 263 (limits on continuing-violation doctrine)
- Doe v. Roman Catholic Archbishop of the Archdiocese of Detroit, 264 Mich. App. 632 (requirements to plead fraudulent concealment)
- Fonger v. Dep’t of Treasury, 193 Mich. App. 71 (retroactive statute does not revive claims barred by limitations)
- Turner v. Mercy Hosps. & Health Servs. of Detroit, 210 Mich. App. 345 (statutes of limitations reflect public policy)