Statutory notice requirements for invoking the highway exception of the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); MCL 691.1404; Exact location & nature of the defect; Nature of plaintiff’s injury; Known witnesses; Timely notice; Service of process; Whether supplemental information was sufficient to cure previous deficiencies 

Concluding “that plaintiff’s failure to comply with the notice requirements of MCL 691.1404 was fatal to her claim under the” GTLA’s highway exception, the court affirmed the trial court’s grant of defendant-City’s motion for summary disposition. “Plaintiff’s initial notice was deficient because, although served within 120 days of her injury, it did not specify the exact location and nature of the defect or the injury she sustained, nor did it name her son as a witness.” The court noted her initial notice only stated “that a ‘defective road’ caused her injuries. This vague description, without more, was not sufficient to notify the City of the exact nature of the defect.” Further, her initial notice simply stated “that her claim was for ‘personal injuries,’ without elaborating on the particular nature of those injuries.” Finally, contrary to her claim, “her son was a known witness who should have been disclosed in her notice to the City.” The court added that the “notice did not even specify the date of her fall.” Plaintiff next argued “that the supplemental information she provided after sending the initial notice cured its deficiencies.” The court disagreed. She was correct “that notice under MCL 691.1404(1) ‘need not be provided in any particular form and is sufficient if it is timely and contains the requisite information.’” The court noted that it “has explained that not all the information required by MCL 691.1404(1) need necessarily be included with the plaintiff’s initial notice, but rather ‘it is sufficient if a notice received by the governmental agency within the 120-day period contains all the required elements.’” Thus, it has held that “a supplemental notice, properly served, may cure an inadequate initial notice.” But the court noted that she “was required to provide the requisite notice under MCL 691.1404(1) within 120 days of her injury.” Plaintiff tried to cure the initial notice’s deficiencies with supplemental information in e-mails to a liability claims adjustor (D) “that included her medical records and photographs of the defective road.” The 120-day period here expired on 12/25/20, “a court holiday. Accordingly, the final day of the statutory period was extended to the next business day, which was Monday,” 12/28/20. It was undisputed that her “attorney’s e-mail to [D] attaching plaintiff’s medical records was sent on” 12/29/20, and that the photos of the defective road were emailed to D on 5/5/21. “Thus, plaintiff’s supplemental information was not timely provided” and the trial court could not properly consider it as part of her notice. “MCL 691.1404 must be enforced as written even if the untimely submission results in no prejudice.” The trial court did not err in holding that her “supplemental information was insufficient because it was untimely.”