Background

• Plaintiff filed a December 2012 complaint alleging assault and battery, IIED, and false imprisonment arising from sexual abuse allegedly occurring starting in 1995 when he was five.
• Defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the ground that claims were time-barred.
• Plaintiff conceded applicable limitations periods had expired under MCL 600.5805(2), 600.5805(10), and 600.5851(1) but argued equitable estoppel due to defendant’s threats to kill him and harm his sisters if he disclosed the abuse.
• Trial court ruled the limitations periods had elapsed and that equitable estoppel did not apply.
• The issue on appeal is whether the threat to murder and harm family can estop the statute of limitations; the court held that, although a threat can establish the first element, a plaintiff must show a reasonable time after coercion ended to file suit, which did not occur here.
• Plaintiff disclosed the abuse to police in December 2010; suit was filed in December 2012, about two years later, and the court affirmed dismissal on the basis that equitable estoppel did not apply due to the delay after disclosure.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Lothian v. Detroit, 414 Mich 160 (1982) (estoppel requires coercive acts to induce delay and timely filing after coercion ends)
• Cincinnati Ins Co v. Citizens Ins Co, 454 Mich 263 (1997) (equitable estoppel as waiver; unusual circumstances to extend filing period)
• McDonald v Farm Bureau Ins Co, 480 Mich 191 (2008) (elements of equitable estoppel; inducement, justifiable reliance, and prejudice)
• Devillers v Auto Club Ins Ass’n, 473 Mich 562 (2005) (equitable estoppel is not general policy; binding only in unusual circumstances)
• Genesee Co Drain Comm’r v Genesee Co, 309 Mich App 317 (2015) (first-element requires false representation or concealment of a material fact)
• Pusakulich v City of Ironwood, 247 Mich App 80 (2001) (summary-judgment evidence admissibility and factual acceptance standard)