Governmental immunity; The written claim or notice of claim requirement; MCL 600.6431(1); Whether Christie v Wayne State Univ applies retroactively; New rule of law; Landin v Department of Health & Human Servs; Flamont v Department of Corr; Tyrrell v University of MI; Special panel under MCR 7.215(J)(3)

Under Landin, the court was compelled to find that the trial court erred in granting defendant’s summary disposition motion “because the decision in Christie should be applied prospectively only, as the rule announced in Christie amounted to a new rule of law.” But because it disagreed with Landin’s analysis, it called “for the convening of a special panel under MCR 7.215(J)(3) to consider the conflict between Flamont” and Landin as to Christie’s retroactivity. The case concerned whether the rule announced in Christie—i.e., “for waiver of sovereign immunity by the state to apply, the plaintiff must file a written claim or notice of claim with the clerk of the Court of Claims—applies retroactively.” The court’s recent decision in Landin was in conflict with another recent opinion, Flamont. The court found that its decision here was controlled by Landin, which distinguished Flamont. “In this case, like the plaintiff in Landin, the complaint was filed on [6/29/22], after Tyrrell but before Christie was decided. Under Landin’s formulation of the retroactivity analysis, the rule under which plaintiff was operating—i.e., the rule from Tyrrell—was a ‘new rule of law.’” The court found that “under Landin, all of the same considerations concerning the three-part test apply, and this Court is constrained to follow Landin and reverse the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition.” However, but for Landin, the court “would affirm the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition, consistent with the holding in Flamont that the rule in Christie was not a ‘new rule of law’ because the Supreme Court ‘does not announce a new rule of law when it overrules a decision of the Court of Appeals that misinterpreted a statute contrary to the statute’s plain language, legislative intent, and existing precedent . . . .’” Reversed and remanded.