McCahan v. Brennan
804 N.W.2d 906
Mich. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiff was injured in a December 12, 2007 car accident on the University of Michigan campus involving a university-owned car on university business.
- Plaintiff’s counsel indicated on May 7, 2008 that he would represent plaintiff in a lawsuit over the accident.
- Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to file a claim in the Court of Claims on October 31, 2008, signed by plaintiff and counsel.
- The trial court granted summary disposition for the university because plaintiff did not comply with MCL 600.6431(3).
- MCL 600.6431(3) requires a claim or notice to be filed with the Court of Claims within 6 months of the event for personal injuries.
- The Court of Claims granted summary disposition; the majority affirmed; discussion emphasized that the filing deadline is mandatory and not satisfied here.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to file within six months bars the claim | Plaintiff substantially complied with the statute. | Plaintiff failed to file within six months as required by the statute. | Yes; the claim was barred. |
| Whether substantial compliance suffices under MCL 600.6431(3) | Substantial compliance should be enough to proceed. | The statute uses mandatory language requiring strict compliance. | Not sufficient; strict compliance required. |
| Whether Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm applies to MCL 600.6431(3) notice | Rowland should apply, negating prejudice requirement. | Rowland does not extend to MCL 600.6431(3). | Court applied Rowland’s rationale to hold strict compliance; Rowland not controlling for prejudice requirement here. |
| Whether the Court of Claims properly granted summary disposition | Proper remedy is remand or continued proceedings given actual knowledge. | Summary disposition was proper due to noncompliance. | upheld; summary disposition appropriate. |
| Whether Beasley and related dissents support prejudice-based remand | Beasley suggests prejudice not required and remand may be appropriate. | Rowland-based interpretation controls; no prejudice requirement here. | Majority adopted Rowland-based strict compliance; Beasley noted in dissent was not controlling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reich v Hwy Comm, 43 Mich App 284; 204 NW2d 226 (1972) (filing prerequisite for claims against the state)
- Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197; 731 NW2d 41 (2007) (strict enforcement of notice without prejudice requirement in certain contexts)
- Walters v Nadell, 481 Mich 377; 751 NW2d 431 (2008) (interpreting mandatory language in notice provisions)
- People v Francisco, 474 Mich 82; 711 NW2d 44 (2006) (statutory interpretation and mandatory terms)
- Beasley v Michigan, 483 Mich 1025; 765 NW2d 608 (2009) (Beasley discussed Rowland and notice provisions; non-precedential in some aspects)
- May v Dep't of Natural Resources, 140 Mich App 730; 365 NW2d 192 (1985) (prejudice-based approach to statutory notice requirements)
- Fluor Enterprises, Inc v Treasury Dep’t, 477 Mich 170; 730 NW2d 722 (2007) (statutory interpretation and enforcing clear language)
- People v Gillis, 474 Mich 105; 712 NW2d 419 (2006) (enforcing plain statutory language)
- Beasley v Michigan (concurring discussion), 483 Mich 1025; 765 NW2d 608 (2009) (concurring interpretation relevant to Rowland application)