Action alleging damage to real property due to flooding caused by bridge modifications; Statute of limitations (SOL); MCL 600.5805(2); Accrual; MCL 600.5827; Analyzing the “gravamen” of the complaint

In an order in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the court reversed the Court of Appeals judgment (see e-Journal # 80430 in the 11/9/23 edition) to the extent it ruled that plaintiff’s claims were barred by the applicable SOL, vacated the trial court’s order granting defendants summary disposition, and remanded the case to the trial court. The court held that the trial court and the Court of Appeals “erred by analyzing the gravamen of the plaintiff’s claims collectively.” The court instructed the trial court on remand to reconsider defendants’ motions for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) “while individually determining the accrual date for each of the plaintiff’s five pleaded claims for purposes of its” SOL. The court concluded the “lower courts erred by analyzing the ‘gravamen’ of the plaintiff’s complaint rather than each individual claim when determining when the claims accrued. While it is appropriate to determine the gravamen of a legal claim when that cause of action has been filed with a different label to avoid an applicable period of limitations, this analysis should not be used to prevent a plaintiff from bringing multiple different legal claims that are each supported by a viable legal theory and are legally plausible given the facts that have been alleged.” The court noted that with the possible exception of his declaratory relief claim, it appeared undisputed plaintiff’s claims were subject to a three-year limitations period under MCL 600.5805(2). But each of his claims “have distinct legal elements and, if analyzed independently, could result in different accrual dates if the elements of each claim were alleged to have been satisfied at different times.” The court directed the trial court “to individually analyze each pleaded legal claim in relation to the operative facts and determine the earliest date on which all the required legal elements occurred and could have been pleaded in a complaint.” As to the SOL and accrual date for the declaratory judgment count, the trial “court should also determine whether the claim can fairly be read as seeking a declaration of the parties’ rights and obligations under the easement regarding the repair and maintenance of the bridge or whether the claim is actually an independent tort action in disguise.”