Dwayne Wigfall v. City of Detroit
322 Mich. App. 36
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 9, 2014, Wigfall struck a pothole while riding a motorcycle and was injured; he filed suit on December 2, 2015 alleging a highway defect.
- MCL 691.1404(1)-(2) requires serving notice of a highway-defect injury on the governmental agency within 120 days, and the notice "may be served upon any individual... who may lawfully be served with civil process directed against the governmental agency."
- MCR 2.105(G)(2) identifies the individuals who may be served for a city: the mayor, city clerk, or city attorney (Corporation Counsel for Detroit).
- Wigfall sent certified-mail notice to "City of Detroit Law Department – Claims" within 120 days; Detroit’s law department received and requested additional information.
- Detroit moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing statutory notice was deficient because Wigfall did not serve an authorized individual (mayor, clerk, or city attorney).
- The trial court denied the motion, finding Wigfall substantially complied and that equitable estoppel barred Detroit from asserting insufficiency; the Court of Appeals reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether plaintiff satisfied MCL 691.1404(2) by mailing notice to the City Law Department Claims section | Mailing to the law department claims section (per city website and telephone guidance) satisfied notice or at least amounted to substantial compliance | Statute requires service on an individual who may be lawfully served (mayor, city clerk, or city attorney); mailing to claims section is not service on such an individual | Held: Not satisfied. Strict statutory compliance required; plaintiff did not serve a proper individual and thus failed to comply |
| Whether substantial compliance with MCL 691.1404(2) suffices | Substantial compliance is sufficient when defendant received the notice and requested information | Legislative language is clear; judicially created substantial-compliance exceptions cannot override the statute | Held: Substantial compliance insufficient; court enforces statute as written |
| Whether Detroit is equitably estopped from asserting insufficient notice because it provided misleading guidance on its website/telephone | City’s website and an employee’s telephone direction led plaintiff to send notice to claims section; plaintiff justifiably relied on that guidance | City cannot alter statutory notice requirements by website/charter/ordinance; misinterpretation of law by the city does not estop enforcement of the statute | Held: Equitable estoppel does not apply; plaintiff not entitled to rely on city’s misinterpretation of statutory filing requirements |
| Whether summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) granting governmental immunity was appropriate | Implicitly argued no because notice was timely and received | Motion appropriate because statutory precondition to suit was not met, barring recovery under governmental immunity | Held: Reversed trial court; summary disposition should be granted and action barred by governmental immunity |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Washtenaw Co. Rd. Comm., 477 Mich. 197 (enforcement of unambiguous statutory notice language)
- McCahan v. Brennan, 492 Mich. 730 (court may not judicially rewrite clear statutory mandates)
- McLean v. Dearborn, 302 Mich. App. 68 (failure to serve proper individual under statutory notice bars claim)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (standard for summary disposition and consideration of documentary evidence)
- James v. Alberts, 464 Mich. 12 (application of equitable estoppel presents question of law)
- Casey v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 273 Mich. App. 388 (elements and formulation of equitable estoppel)