Michigan Court of Appeals Clarifies: Wrongful Death Savings Statute Tolls Notice Requirement in Claims Against the State
Steve St. Juliana v. State Police and State of Michigan
Opinion Published: July 17, 2025 (Feeney, Borrello, Letica)
Court of Appeals Docket Nos. 370427
State of Michigan Court of Claims
Holding: The wrongful death savings provisions under MCL 600.5852 extends the filing timeframe and tolls the statutory notice period and therefore the Court of Claims grant of summary disposition was reversed and remanded.
Facts: After the death of his daughter, Hana St. Juliana, during the Oxford High School shooting in November 2021, Steve St. Juliana filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on September 22, 2022 against the State of Michigan and the Michigan State Police pursuant MCL 600.2922. Plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to safeguard the students from a foreseeable risk of death or injury because, after receiving several communications on its OK2SAY program about a planned school attack, the Oakland County Sheriff’s Department determined there was no actual threat and no further action was taken. The tipline had received multiple reports regarding Ethan Crumbley and the school was aware of Crumbley’s violent behaviors.
The defendants brought a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10) alleging that the complaint should be dismissed because the event that gave rise to plaintiff’s claim was the shooting in November 2021, and plaintiff had filed his notice of intent and claim outside of the six months following the event. Plaintiff counter-argued that it was timely filing under MCL 600.5852 because it was within 2 years of February 25, 2022 issuance of letters of authority appointing plaintiff as personal representative of Ms. St. Juliana’s estate. Under MCL 600.5852(1) there is no provision of the Court of Claims Act barring or limiting the application of limitation periods.
The Court of Claims granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition and found that plaintiff had failed to comply with the notice provisions of MCL 600.6431 by failing to file his notice of intent to sue within six months of Ms. St. Juliana’s death. The Court of Claims rejected plaintiff’s argument regarding the issues of letters of authority because the Legislature did not indicate under MCL 600.5852(1) that the letters tolled the Court of Claims’ notice provision. Further, the court opined that there was no general discovery rule that would serve to extend the six month notice period based on the plaintiff’s contention that he did not discover Michigan State Police’s role relative to his claim until July 2022.
Key Appellate Ruling:
The wrongful death savings provisions under MCL 600.5852 extends the filing timeframe and tolls the statutory notice period.
The Court of Appeals opined that under the wrongful-death savings provisions, if a person dies before the period of limitations has run or within 30 days after, an action can be commenced by the personal representative of the deceased person at any time within 2 years after letter of authority are issued. In Eversole v Nash, ___ Mich App ___ (June 13, 2024), the Court of Appeals explained that MCL 600.5852 is a savings provision that preserves actions that survive death so that the representative of the estate may have reasonable time to pursue actions. The Court questioned whether the wrongful-death saving provision impacted the time limits associated with the notice requirements of MCL 600.6431 for claims against the state and its agencies. It opined that if the provisions in MCL 600.5852 did not influence the notice requirements of MCL 600.6431, it would undermine the saving provisions intended purpose to give the representative of the estate reasonable time to pursue actions.
The Court of Appeals compared its ruling in Mays v Synder, 323 Mich App 1; 916 NW2d 227 (2018), which dealt with MCL 600.6431 and an exception to a statute of limitations created by Chapter 58 of the Revised Judicature Act, to this case. The wrongful-death savings provision is included in the same Chapter of the Revised Judicature Act. The same disparity in Mays existed in this case, in that the legislature imported an exception in the statute of limitations provision, but did not provide the same exception into the statutory notice provision. MCL 600.6431 does not import the wrongful-death saving provision, but does not exclude operation of the saving provision. This Court in Mays held that the legislature’s intent was to apply and toll the statutory notice period with the tolling of the statute of limitations. 323 Mich App at 40-44. Applying that rational to this case, the Court opined that the wrongful-death savings provisions was intended to safeguard plaintiffs’ rights, and the Legislature’s clear intent was to implement the provision in conjunction with the Court of Claims Act, even if the provision was not explicitly imported into MCL 600.6431. Therefore, the summary disposition was reversed because the savings provision extended the filing timeframe and tolls the statutory notice period as long as it meets the specific conditions within the provision.
