Chisholm v. State Police
| Docket Number | 355691 |
| Decision Date | 03 August 2023 |
| Parties | JOSEPH CHISHOLM, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. STATE POLICE and STATE OF MICHIGAN, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Court of Claims LC No. 20-000078-MZ
Before: GADOLA, P.J., and SWARTZLE and CAMERON, JJ.
Defendants the State Police and the State of Michigan, appeal as of right[1] the Court of Claims' order denying their motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10) of plaintiff's claim for personal protection insurance benefits under Michigan's no-fault act, MCL 500.3101 et seq., and asserting a tort claim under the motor vehicle exception to the government tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1405. We affirm.
This case arises from a motor vehicle collision. At about 9:50 p.m. on May 3, 2019, plaintiff, who was operating a motorcycle, was stopped at a red light in the right lane of Inkster Road in Inkster, Michigan. As plaintiff began his right turn, he was struck from behind by a police vehicle driven by a state trooper; the officer reportedly was watching the cross-traffic and did not realize that the motorcycle had stopped. Plaintiff denied any injury at the time and refused emergency medical treatment. The following day, however, on May 4, 2019, plaintiff was evaluated at an emergency room for neck and back pain, and he later received follow-up medical treatment. Plaintiff sought payment of no-fault benefits from defendants' third-party benefits administrator. The administrator referred plaintiff for an independent medical examination and thereafter concluded that it would pay benefits only for the initial medical evaluation and physical therapy immediately following the incident.
On November 1, 2019, plaintiff filed a notice of intent with the Court of Claims stating that he intended to sue defendants for damages resulting from the accident; the notice was dated, signed by plaintiff, and plaintiff's signature was notarized. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Court of Claims on May 4, 2020, seeking no-fault benefits and asserting a tort claim; the complaint was not verified. On May 26, 2020, plaintiff filed his First Amended Verified Complaint; above plaintiff's signature on the amended complaint was the statement that plaintiff "sign[ed] and verif[ied] this complaint before an officer authorized to administer oaths." Plaintiff's signature was notarized.
Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10) on the basis that plaintiff did not timely file a verified notice of intent or a verified claim as required by MCL 600.6431. Defendants contended that the notice of intent and original complaint filed by plaintiff were not verified because they did not contain a declaration consistent with MCL 600.6431(2)(d) and MCR 1.109(D)(3)(b).
The Court of Claims denied defendants' motion, concluding that plaintiff's notice of intent satisfied the verification requirement of MCL 600.6431. The Court of Claims held that the jurat verification provided on the notice of intent was a "formal declaration before an officer authorized to administer oaths with respect to the contents of the document so verified." The Court of Claims held that the requirements of MCR 1.109(D)(3) do not apply to a notice of intent filed under MCL 600.6431. The Court of Claims also found that plaintiff's amended complaint was verified as required by MCL 600.6434, and had been timely filed within the time permitted to amend a complaint under the court rules.
Defendants appealed to this Court contending that plaintiff failed to comply with MCL 600.6431, and that plaintiff's claim therefore was subject to dismissal. This Court held the appeal in abeyance pending our Supreme Court's resolution of Elia Companies, LLC v Univ of Michigan Regents, __Mich __; __ N.W.2d__ (2023) (Docket No. 162830).
Defendants contend that the Court of Claims erred by denying their motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10). We review de novo a trial court's decision to grant or deny a motion for summary disposition. Meemic Ins Co v Fortson, 506 Mich. 287, 296; 954 N.W.2d 115 (2020). We also review de novo questions regarding the interpretation and construction of the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq., Doe v Dep't of Transp, 324 Mich.App. 226, 231; 919 N.W.2d 670 (2018), and questions of governmental immunity, Petersen Fin LLC v Kentwood, 326 Mich.App. 433, 441; 928 N.W.2d 245 (2018).
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is warranted when immunity is granted by law. When reviewing a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), we consider the documentary evidence submitted by the parties and accept the contents of the complaint as true unless contradicted by documentation submitted by the non-moving party. Estate of Miller v Angels' Place, Inc, 334 Mich.App. 325, 330; 964 N.W.2d 839 (2020).
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests the factual sufficiency of the claim and is properly granted when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. El-Khalil v Oakwood Healthcare, Inc, 504 Mich. 152, 160; 934 N.W.2d 665 (2019). When reviewing the trial court's order granting or denying a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10), we consider the documentary evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant. Id. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record leaves open an issue on which reasonable minds might disagree. Johnson v Vanderkooi, 502 Mich. 751, 761; 918 N.W.2d 785 (2018).
Defendants contend that they are entitled to summary disposition because plaintiff failed timely to file a verified notice of intent to file a claim or a verified claim as required by MCL 600.6431. We disagree.
The GTLA broadly shields governmental agencies from tort liability. Fairley v Dep't of Corrections, 497 Mich. 290, 297; 871 N.W.2d 129 (2015). A party seeking to impose liability upon a governmental agency must demonstrate that the claim falls within an exception to governmental immunity. Id. at 298. In this case, plaintiff's claim invokes the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity under MCL 691.1405, which provides that "[g]overnmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the negligent operation by any officer, agent, or employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the governmental agency is owner."
A claim brought pursuant to an exception to governmental immunity must be brought in the manner provided in the Revised Judicature Act (RJA). Fairley, 497 Mich. at 297. Chapter 64 of the RJA is the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq. Section 6431 of that act, MCL 600.6431, "establishes conditions precedent for avoiding the governmental immunity conferred by the GTLA." Fairley, 497 Mich. at 297. A plaintiff must satisfy the conditions of MCL 600.6431 to "avoid[] the governmental immunity conferred by the GTLA" and "to successfully expose the defendant state agencies to liability." Id. at 297-298. Thus, "all parties with claims against the state, except those exempted in MCL 600.6431 itself, must comply with the requirements of MCL 600.6431." Elia Companies, __ Mich. at __; slip op at 3, citing Christie v Wayne State Univ, __ Mich__, __; __ N.W.2d __ (2023) (Docket No. 162706); slip op at 11. A plaintiff's failure to strictly comply with MCL 600.6431 mandates dismissal of the claim. Elia Companies, __ Mich. at __; slip op at 4.
MCL 600.6431 provides, in relevant part:
Thus under MCL 600.6431(1), to maintain a claim against the state, a claimant must file a claim or a notice of intent to file a claim within one year after the claim accrues. However, for a claim against the state for property damage or personal injury, "the claimant shall file the claim or notice under subsection (1) with the clerk of the court of claims within 6 months after the event that gives rise to the claim." MCL 600.6431(4). In this case, the parties do not disagree that plaintiff had six months from the date of the event giving rise to his claim to file either a verified notice of intent to file a claim or a verified claim for his personal injuries or property damage, and one year from the date of accrual to file a verified...
To continue reading
Request your trial