Sunrise Resort Association Inc v. Cheboygan County Road Commission, 511 Mich 325

Property owners along West Burt Lake Road alleged Cheboygan County Road Commission modified a storm-water drainage system (2013, 2015), causing minor damage reported in 2015 and a discrete overflow/backup that caused significant erosion in 2018.
Plaintiffs filed suit in February 2020 asserting (1) a statutory claim under the SDSE exception to governmental immunity (MCL 691.1416–.1419) for the 2018 event, (2) a gross-negligence claim (conceded to be barred), and (3) a common-law trespass‑nuisance claim seeking injunctive relief.
Defendant moved for summary disposition arguing the SDSE and trespass claims were time‑barred (three‑year limitations) and that injunctive relief was unavailable under the GTLA. Trial court dismissed both claims as untimely and barred.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the claims did not accrue until the 2018 event and that injunctive relief was available under the SDSE exception.
The Michigan Supreme Court held: (a) the SDSE claim was timely because it alleged harm from a discrete 2018 event; (b) MCL 691.1417(2) abrogated common‑law exceptions (including trespass‑nuisance), so that common‑law claim and the tied injunction were barred; (c) remanded for further proceedings on the SDSE claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Accrual / statute of limitations for SDSE claim	SDSE claim accrues at the 2018 overflow event; suit filed within 3 years so timely	Claim accrued in 2015 (earlier modifications/minor flooding); 3‑year period expired	Claim accrued when plaintiffs were harmed by the discrete 2018 event; SDSE claim timely
Availability of injunctive relief / trespass‑nuisance exception	Plaintiffs may obtain injunction for ongoing nuisance; common‑law trespass‑nuisance exception should allow relief	SDSE statute abrogates common‑law exceptions; GTLA bars injunctive relief tied to abrogated claim	MCL 691.1417(2) abrogates common‑law exceptions (including trespass‑nuisance); plaintiffs’ injunction tied to that abrogated claim is unavailable

Connelly v. Paul Ruddy’s Equip. Repair & Serv. Co., 388 Mich. 146 (1971) (claim accrues when all elements exist and can be alleged)
Trentadue v. Buckler Automatic Lawn Sprinkler Co., 479 Mich. 378 (2007) (accrual focuses on the moment plaintiff is harmed)
Boyle v. Gen. Motors Corp., 468 Mich. 226 (2003) (accrual and harm timing principles)
Fraser Twp. v. Haney, 509 Mich. 18 (2021) (abrogation of continuing‑wrongs doctrine does not bar new claims for discrete subsequent violations)
Garg v. Macomb Co. Cmty. Mental Health Servs., 472 Mich. 263 (2005) (discussing limits of continuing‑wrongs doctrine)
Nawrocki v. Macomb Co. Rd. Comm’n, 463 Mich. 143 (2000) (statutory immunity exceptions construed narrowly)
Madugula v. Taub, 496 Mich. 685 (2014) (statutory interpretation principles)
McMaster v. DTE Energy Co., 509 Mich. 423 (2022) (legislature may abrogate common law; courts require clear statutory language)
Murphy v. Inman, 509 Mich. 132 (2022) (same point on abrogation and clarity)
Pohutski v. Allen Park, 465 Mich. 675 (2002) (historical discussion of common‑law exceptions to governmental immunity)