Action arising from high tap water lead levels; MCR 2.116(C)(7) summary disposition standard for notice/limitations defenses; MCL 600.6431(4) six-month filing/notice requirement for property damage & personal injury claims against the state; Fraudulent concealment tolling under MCL 600.5855; Accrual & reasonable diligence in discovering a claim; Mays v Snyder

The court held that the Court of Claims properly considered plaintiffs’ allegations and properly concluded that defendants’ evidence did not eliminate the questions of fact that arose from plaintiffs’ claims. In consolidated class-action appeals arising from elevated lead levels in Benton Harbor’s tap water, defendants sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing plaintiffs missed the six-month deadline in MCL 600.6431(4). The court affirmed denial, emphasizing that a (C)(7) motion “ultimately presents a question of law,” and that “‘the contents of the complaint must be accepted as true unless specifically contradicted by the affidavits or other appropriate documentation submitted by the movant.’” Considering defendants’ submissions, the Court of Claims “properly considered the evidence” and it did not “fully contradict plaintiffs’ contentions that their claims were not time barred.” Thus, dismissal was inappropriate where “‘a question of fact exists so that factual development could provide a basis for recovery[.]’” The court also held that fact questions remained on fraudulent concealment tolling, noting tolling requires “an affirmative act or misrepresentation” because silence by itself is not enough, and the defendant must use “some artifice planned to prevent inquiry or escape investigation, and to mislead or otherwise hinder the acquisition of information disclosing a right of action.” Applying those standards and citing the Flint water-crisis case law framework, the court described “the essence of plaintiffs’ argument” as that until 10/21 defendants told residents the lead problem was being addressed and recommended flushing and filters, but did not advise stopping drinking the water. Because defendants’ evidence “offered no facts to disprove this characterization of defendants’ public messaging up to late” 10/21, plaintiffs’ allegations supported that what they knew from 2018 to early 10/21 “was not enough to charge them with knowledge of the existence of plaintiffs’ constitutional claims.” With fact questions remaining, “the Court of Claims properly denied” summary disposition. Affirmed.