The Governmental Tort Liability Act; Exceptions to governmental immunity; MCL 691.1407(7); Whether a government agency may be held civilly liable for violations of the MISS DIG Underground Facility Damage Prevention & Safety Act (the MISS DIG Act); Ability to file a complaint with the Public Service Commission (PSC); MCL 460.732; Amending a complaint to assert the sewage disposal system event (SDSE) exception; Notice requirement; MCL 691.1419

The court held that “MCL 691.1407(7) does not authorize a claim in circuit court for monetary damages against a governmental agency” for violations of the MISS DIG Act. It also held that the trial court prematurely granted plaintiff-Zezula’s motion to amend his complaint to assert the SDSE exception to governmental immunity before he “alleged compliance with the exception’s notice requirement.” Thus, the court reversed “Part III of the Court of Appeals’ opinion and the trial court’s order to the extent it” denied defendant-Independence Township summary disposition of Zezula’s claim under MCL 691.1407(7), and it vacated “Parts IV and V of the Court of Appeals’ opinion and the” trial court’s order to the extent it granted Zezula leave to amend his complaint. The case arose after he “suffered property damage when a damaged sewer line caused sewage to back up into his house.” He sought to hold the Township liable for allegedly failing to mark “township-owned sewer lines as required by the MISS DIG Act.” The court concluded that the trial court erred in denying the Township’s summary disposition motion on the basis “MCL 691.1407(7) provided the necessary exception to governmental immunity.” Rather, that statute, “which explicitly refers to the MISS DIG Act, provides the ability to file a complaint with the [PSC] as a means to avoid governmental immunity.” That is the one remedy provided to avoid governmental immunity for a violation of the Act. The court also found that “the trial court erred in granting Zezula’s oral motion for leave to amend his complaint to plead the SDSE exception to governmental immunity.” The Township alleged that he “failed to comply with the SDSE exception’s notice requirement, and” he did not respond when the Township pointed out that he “failed to meet that burden in a written motion and at a” motion hearing. Given “the alleged lack of notice and the failure to respond to Independence Township’s argument that Zezula did not provide the required notice, the trial court could not properly determine whether amendment to plead under the SDSE exception would be futile without addressing notice.” Remanded to the trial court for entry of an order granting the Township’s summary disposition motion “as to MCL 691.1407(7), reconsideration of Zezula’s motion for leave to amend, and” possible other further proceedings.