McCAHAN v. BRENNAN
492 Mich. 730
| Mich. | 2012Background
- McCahan, injured in a Dec 12, 2007 auto crash involving University of Michigan vehicle, seeks recovery from the university under the Court of Claims Act.
- MCL 600.6431 requires filing a written claim or notice within 1 year, with six-month modification for personal injury cases under (3).
- Plaintiff did not file a verified notice or claim within six months, but attempted to notify the university’s legal office and provided information after the deadline.
- October 31, 2008, plaintiff filed a notice of intent to file a claim with the Court of Claims; suit filed December 5, 2008.
- Court of Claims granted summary disposition, holding six-month deadline governs and failure to file bars the claim; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- This Court affirms, applying Rowland to hold no prejudice requirement may save noncompliant notice; statute read as cohesive whole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relation of (1) and (3) in MCL 600.6431 | McCahan argues (3) independent; (1) not applicable. | University argues (1) applies, (3) is a modification within the same framework. | (3) within (1) context; (1) applies to all claims unless modified by (3). |
| Whether failure to file notice within 6 months bars suit despite actual notice | Actual notice suffices; prejudice not required. | Failure to file within 6 months triggers bar to claims. | Bar to suit applies; Rowland controls; no prejudice inquiry required. |
| Application of Rowland to MCL 600.6431 | Rowland does not extend beyond highway notice; not binding here. | Rowland applies to similar statutory notice provisions; governs this case. | Rowland governs; no prejudice requirement; notice deadline strict. |
| Statutory interpretation of MCL 600.6431 as a cohesive whole | (3) stands apart from (1) and does not incorporate (1)’s bar. | Statute read as cohesive; (3) modifies (1) but does not displace it. | Subsections read together; (1) bar applies to (3) cases; no standalone saving construction. |
| Whether the dissent’s legislative acquiescence theory is valid | Legislature acquiesced in non-prejudice approach over time. | Acquiescence is not controlling; text governs. | Court rejects extending legislative acquiescence; Rowland-based rule controls. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 197 (2007) (holding no prejudice requirement in statutory notice cases when the plain language requires notice)
- Robinson v City of Lansing, 486 Mich 1 (2010) (statutory provisions read in context and as a cohesive whole)
- Hobbs v Dep’t of State Hwys, 398 Mich 90 (1976) (prejudice-based interpretation of notice provision under governmental liability act)
- Brown v Manistee Co Rd Comm, 452 Mich 354 (1996) (rejected prejudice-based construction of notice provision)
- Carver v McKernan, 390 Mich 96 (1973) (notice provisions may be constitutional with prejudice inquiry; context matters)
- Grubaugh v City of St Johns, 384 Mich 165 (1970) (early notice provisions scrutinized under due process)
- Reich v State Hwy Dept, 386 Mich 617 (1972) (equal protection concerns with notice provisions)