e-Journal Summary

e-Journal Number : 84224
Opinion Date : 08/18/2025
e-Journal Date : 09/03/2025
Court : Michigan Court of Appeals
Case Name : Turney v. Suburban Mobility Auth. for Reg'l Transp.
Practice Area(s) : Negligence & Intentional Tort
Judge(s) : Per Curiam – Redford, Riordan, and Bazzi
Full PDF Opinion
Issues:

Notice requirements of MCL 124.419; Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART)

Summary

The court concluded that plaintiff timely notified defendant-SMART “of his claim in the manner SMART requested plaintiff communicate with it by e-mailing notice of his claim to SMART’s agent.” Thus, it agreed that the trial court erred by holding “that plaintiff did not provide written notice of his claims to SMART pursuant to MCL 124.419 and dismissing the action.” It reversed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition in defendants’ favor and remanded. Plaintiff, a passenger on a SMART bus, alleged that he sustained injuries when the driver “suddenly braked causing plaintiff to fall out of his seat and hit a wall barrier in the bus.” He argued “the trial court erred by finding that he did not comply with the notice requirements of MCL 124.419 because he served two letters on the Senior Claims Examiner [an employee of the ASU Group, a third-party administrator on behalf of SMART] within the 60-day time frame of MCL 124.419.” Because the 7/18/23 “letter informed SMART of plaintiff’s claim against it within the 60-day time frame and defendants acquiesced to notice via e mail,” the court agreed. Because the 7/18/23 “letter substantively informed SMART of plaintiff’s claim against it, we need not address the second letter.” Finally, the court held that “SMART acquiesced to notice via e-mail and plaintiff otherwise complied with the notice requirements of MCL 124.419. Through his counsel, plaintiff sent a letter describing his intent to bring a liability claim against SMART based on the injuries he sustained in the” 6/4/23 incident “He delivered this letter to defendant’s agent in the manner an employee of the ASU Group requested that plaintiff communicate with it within 60 days of the incident. This was sufficient to notify SMART of the claim against it. For these reasons, the trial court erred in concluding that plaintiff did not serve notice of his claim on SMART until [11/23] and that defendants were immune from suit.”

Full PDF Opinion