Jacqueline Anna Reed v. State of Michigan
324 Mich. App. 449
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- On June 12, 2015 Reed tripped on sunken brick pavers at the Michigan Hall of Justice and was injured.
- Reed filed a notice of injury "in triplicate" with the Court of Claims clerk on September 29, 2015 (within 120 days).
- Reed later filed a complaint in the Court of Claims.
- Defendants (State and DTMB) moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing Reed failed to serve the responsible agency (DTMB) as required by MCL 691.1406.
- The Court of Claims denied the motion, holding that filing the notice in triplicate with the Court of Claims clerk satisfied the statutory service requirement; defendants appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 691.1406 (public-building exception) requires both service on the responsible agency and separate filing in triplicate with the Court of Claims, or whether filing in triplicate constitutes service when the state is a defendant | Reed: filing notice in triplicate with the Court of Claims clerk (as required by MCL 691.1404) satisfied the statute’s notice/service requirement | State/DTMB: statute requires serving the agency (DTMB) separately and also filing the notice in triplicate; failure to serve bars the claim | Court affirmed: when the state is a defendant, filing the notice in triplicate with the Court of Claims clerk effects service and satisfies MCL 691.1406 (and related MCL 691.1404(2)) |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodhue v. Dep’t of Transp., 319 Mich. App. 526 (2017) (interpreting MCL 691.1404(2) and holding filing in triplicate with the Court of Claims satisfies notice/service to the state)
- Moraccini v. Sterling Heights, 296 Mich. App. 387 (2012) (standard of review for MCR 2.116(C)(7) and factual-crediting rules)
- Rowland v. Washtenaw Co. Rd. Comm’n, 477 Mich. 197 (2007) (statutory interpretation principles)
- Snead v. John Carlo, Inc., 294 Mich. App. 343 (2011) (de novo review of statutory exceptions to governmental immunity)
- Wesche v. Mecosta Co. Rd. Comm’n, 480 Mich. 75 (2008) (GTLA exceptions to governmental immunity)
- Empire Iron Mining P’ship v. Orhanen, 455 Mich. 410 (1997) (identical statutory language should be construed consistently)