Chisholm v State Police, et al (COA – PUB 8/3/2023; RB #4623)
Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #355691; Published
Judges Gadola, Swartzle, and Cameron; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Forthcoming; Link to Opinion
STATUTORY INDEX:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEX:
Court of Claims Litigation
SUMMARY:
In this unanimous, published, per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant State Police and State of Michigan’s (“the State”) motion for summary disposition, in which they sought dismissal of Plaintiff Joseph Chisholm’s automobile negligence action and action for no-fault PIP benefits. The Court of Appeals held, first, that Chisholm satisfied the requirements of MCL 600.6431 by filing a notice of intent to file a claim within six months of the date of the subject motor vehicle crash. The Court of Appeals held, second, that Chisholm’s notice—which was signed before a notary public—was properly verified for purposes of MCL 600.6431. The Court of Appeals held, third, that by filing a verified notice of intent to file a claim within six months of the date of the crash, Chisholm complied with the requirements of MCL 600.6431 and did not also need to file his complaint within six months of the crash.
On May 3, 2019, Joseph Chisholm’s motorcycle was rear-ended by a vehicle driven by a state trooper. On November 1, 2019, Chisholm filed a notarized notice of intent to file a claim with the Court of Claims. On May 4, 2020, Chisholm filed a complaint against the State which included a claim for PIP benefits and an automobile negligence claim but was unverified. On May 26, 2020, Chisholm filed his First Amended Verified Complaint, but after doing so, the State filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that Chisholm failed to comply with MCL 600.6431(2)(d) and MCR 1.109(D)(3)(b), and thus could not maintain his claims against the State. The trial court disagreed, denying the State’s motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the State’s motion, noting, preliminarily, the various requirements set forth in MCL 600.6431 for filing a claim against the state. MCL 600.6431(1) requires that a claimant file with the clerk of the court of claims a claim or a notice of intent to file a claim within one year of the event giving rise to the claim. MCL 600.6431(2)(d) requires that a claim or notice contain ‘[a] signature and verification by the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths.’ MCL 600.6431(4) shortens the period for filing a claim or notice to six months if the claim is for personal injury. Chisholm had both a claim for PIP benefits and a claim for personal injury, and thus he had one year to file a claim for, or notice of, the former, and six months to file a claim for, or notice of, the latter.
Chisholm filed a notice of intent to file both claims on November 1, 2019—less than six months from the date of the crash—but the State argued that the notice was not properly verified and did not contain the required declaration language set forth in MCR 1.109(D)(3)(b). MCR 1.109(D)(3) provides:
“(3) Verification. Except when otherwise specifically provided by rule or statute, a document need not be verified or accompanied by an affidavit. If a document is required or permitted to be verified, it may be verified by
(a) oath or affirmation of the party or of someone having knowledge of the facts stated; or
(b) except as to an affidavit, including the following signed and dated declaration:
‘I declare under the penalties of perjury that this __________ has been examined by me and that its contents are true to the best of my information, knowledge, and belief.” Any requirement of law that a document filed with the probate court must be sworn may be also met by this declaration.’ ”
The Court rejected the State’s arguments, holding, first, that Chisholm’s notice was properly verified because Chisholm signed it in the presence of a notary public. The Court then held that Chisholm did not need to include the declaration language in MCR 1.109(D)(3)(b) because Chisholm complied with MCR 1.109(D)(3)(a). MCR 1.109(D)(3)(a) and (b) are alternative ways of verifying and need not both be followed.
The State’s last argument on appeal was that Chisholm’s action must be dismissed because his original complaint was not verified, and his amended complaint, which was verified, was not filed until after the time limit for complying with MCL 600.6431. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument as well, noting that MCL 600.6431’s requirement is that a claimant file a verified claim or a verified notice of intent to file a claim within the applicable time limit. In this case, Chisholm filed a verified notice of intent to file a claim within six months of the crash, and thus did not need to also file a verified claim within six months of the crash.
“In this case, plaintiff filed a verified notice of intention to file a claim within the time period specified in MCL 600.6431. Plaintiff thereby fully complied with MCL 600.6431 as required to proceed with his suit against defendants. See Elia Companies, ___ Mich at ___; slip op at 4. Under MCL 600.6434, plaintiff’s complaint was required to be verified; however, plaintiff was not required to file both his verified notice of intent and his verified complaint within the time period specified in MCL 600.6431. Having complied with MCL 600.6431 by timely filing his notice of intent, plaintiff was not required also to file his verified complaint within the time period established by MCL 600.6431.”
