Title: Fairley v. Dept. of Corrections (Opinion on Application)

State: michigan

Issuer: Michigan Supreme Court

Document:

FAIRLEY v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 
STONE v MICHIGAN STATE POLICE 
 
Docket Nos. 149722 and 149940.  Decided June 5, 2015. 
 
 
In Docket No. 149722, Michelle R. Fairley brought an action in the Court of Claims 
against the Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) after an MDOC employee driving an 
MDOC vehicle ran a red light and struck her car, seriously injuring her.  Plaintiff’s counsel filed 
and signed a notice of intent to file a claim against MDOC in the Court of Claims; however, 
plaintiff herself did not sign the notice, as MCL 600.6431(1) requires.  Defendant moved for 
summary disposition on the ground that the notice was defective for that reason.  The Court of 
Claims, James S. Jamo, J., denied defendant’s motion, ruling that defendant had waived this 
argument by failing to plead it as an affirmative defense.  The Court of Appeals, CAVANAGH, 
P.J., and OWENS and STEPHENS, JJ., affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam issued June 
10, 2014 (Docket No. 315594).  Defendant applied for leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. 
 
 
In Docket No. 149940, Lori L. Stone brought an action in the Court of Claims against the 
Michigan State Police (MSP) for injuries she sustained when her stopped vehicle was struck by 
two MSP patrol cars.  Plaintiff filed a notice of intent to file a claim against the MSP in the Court 
of Claims; however, the notice did not indicate that it had been verified before an officer 
authorized to administer oaths, as MCL 600.6431(1) requires.  Defendant moved for summary 
disposition on the ground that the notice was defective for that reason.  The Court of Claims, 
David S. Swartz, J., granted the motion, ruling that, although plaintiff’s counsel had later averred 
that he was a notary public authorized to administer oaths, that fact was not apparent from the 
notice.  The Court of Appeals, CAVANAGH, P.J., and OWENS and STEPHENS, JJ., reversed in an 
unpublished opinion per curiam issued July 8, 2014 (Docket No. 314848), holding that 
MCL 600.6431(1) did not require evidence of the oath or affirmation to appear on the face of the 
notice and that a failure to comply with the procedural prerequisites of MCL 600.6431(1) was an 
affirmative defense that is waived if not timely raised.  Defendant applied for leave to appeal in 
the Supreme Court. 
 
 
In a memorandum opinion signed by Chief Justice YOUNG and Justices MARKMAN, 
KELLY, ZAHRA, MCCORMACK, VIVIANO, AND BERNSTEIN, the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting 
leave to appeal and without hearing oral argument, held: 
 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
Syllabus 
 
Chief Justice: 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
 
Justices: 
Stephen J. Markman 
Mary Beth Kelly 
Brian K. Zahra 
Bridget M. McCormack 
David F. Viviano 
Richard H. Bernstein 
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been  
prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. 
Reporter of Decisions: 
Corbin R. Davis 
 
A notice of intent to file a claim against a department of the state under MCL 600.6431 
that lacks any indication that it was signed and verified before an officer authorized to administer 
oaths is defective and provides a complete defense that may be raised at any time by a defendant 
entitled to governmental immunity.  While MCL 600.6431 does not confer governmental 
immunity, it establishes conditions precedent for avoiding the governmental immunity conferred 
by the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq.  As a result, plaintiffs were required 
to adhere to the conditions precedent in MCL 600.6431(1) to successfully expose defendants to 
liability.  The notice in Fairley was not signed by the claimant, and the notice in Stone did not 
indicate that it had been verified before an officer authorized to administer an oath.  The affidavit 
of Stone’s attorney indicating that he was a notary public did not cure this deficiency because it 
was untimely.  Therefore, plaintiffs’ claims should have been dismissed. 
 
 
In Fairley, Docket No. 149722, Court of Appeals judgment reversed; case remanded to 
the Court of Claims for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant. 
 
 
In Stone, Docket No. 149940, Court of Appeals judgment reversed; case remanded to the 
Court of Claims for reentry of its original order granting summary disposition in favor of 
defendant. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
©2015 State of Michigan 
 
FILED  June 5, 2015 
 
S T A T E  O F  M I C H I G A N 
 
SUPREME COURT 
 
 
MICHELLE RENEE FAIRLEY, 
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellee, 
 
 
v 
No. 149722 
 
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, 
 
 
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
LORI L. STONE, 
 
 
Plaintiff-Appellee, 
 
 
v 
No. 149940 
 
MICHIGAN STATE POLICE, 
 
 
 
Defendant-Appellant. 
 
 
 
BEFORE THE ENTIRE BENCH  
 
MEMORANDUM OPINION.  
We consider in these consolidated cases whether a claimant’s failure to comply 
with the notice verification requirements of MCL 600.6431 provides a complete defense 
 
Michigan Supreme Court 
Lansing, Michigan 
OPINION 
 
Chief Justice: 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
 
 
Justices: 
Stephen J. Markman 
Mary Beth Kelly 
Brian K. Zahra 
Bridget M. McCormack 
David F. Viviano 
Richard H. Bernstein 
 
 
 
 
 
2 
in an action against the state or one of its departments. We conclude that a notice lacking 
any indication that it was signed and verified before an officer authorized to administer 
oaths is defective and, contrary to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, is a complete 
defense that may be raised at any time by a defendant entitled to governmental immunity. 
Accordingly, and in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we reverse the judgment of the 
Court of Appeals in both Stone v Michigan State Police and Fairley v Department of 
Corrections and remand the cases to the Court of Claims for reinstatement of the order 
granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition in the former and for entry of an 
order granting defendant’s motion for summary disposition in the latter.  
The purpose of MCL 600.6431 is to establish those conditions precedent to 
pursuing a claim against the state. One of these conditions provides: 
No claim may be maintained against the state unless the claimant, 
within 1 year after such claim has accrued, files in the office of the clerk of 
the court of claims either a written claim or a written notice of intention to 
file a claim against the state or any of its departments, commissions, 
boards, institutions, arms or agencies, stating the time when and the place 
where such claim arose and in detail the nature of the same and of the items 
of damage alleged or claimed to have been sustained, which claim or notice 
shall be signed and verified by the claimant before an officer authorized to 
administer oaths.  [MCL 600.6432(1).] 
Plainly, then, unless a claimant’s notice is “signed and verified by the claimant before an 
officer authorized to administer oaths,” a claim cannot proceed against the state. In both 
cases here, plaintiffs claim that nothing in the statute requires anyone other than the 
claimant to sign the notice and successfully argued in the Court of Appeals that 
defendants’ arguments for summary disposition regarding notice were waived because 
the plaintiffs’ alleged noncompliance with the statutory notice requirements was an 
 
 
 
3 
affirmative defense that was not timely pleaded. Alternatively, defendants, both state 
agencies entitled to governmental immunity unless an exception applies, contend that 
complainants must “strictly” comply with the notice requirements in order to proceed. 
We conclude that failing to indicate anywhere on or with the notice that the document 
was verified before an officer authorized to administer oaths falls short of “strict” 
compliance and, as a result, plaintiffs’ cases must be dismissed.  
I.  FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW 
A.  FAIRLEY v DEP’T OF CORRECTIONS 
On March 11, 2011, plaintiff Michelle Fairley was injured in an automobile 
accident after a Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) vehicle, operated by an 
MDOC employee, ran a red light and struck Fairley’s car. Plaintiff faced life-altering 
injuries—to the brain, neck, and back—as well as associated pain, suffering, and 
emotional harm. Plaintiff’s counsel subsequently filed a notice of injury and intent to 
hold MDOC liable in the Court of Claims. The parties do not dispute the timeliness of the 
notice1 or the propriety of MDOC’s designation as the responsible governmental 
agency.2 The notice plainly stated the facts surrounding the accident, including the 
location of the accident and the parties involved. While Fairley herself did not sign the 
notice, her attorney’s signature and the date appeared below the following disclaimer: 
                                              
1 MCL 600.6431(3) provides, in pertinent part, that “claimant shall file with the clerk of 
the court of claims a notice of intention to file a claim or the claim itself within 6 months 
following the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action.” 
2 MCL 600.6431(2) likewise provides, in part, that “[s]uch claim or notice shall designate 
any department, commission, board, institution, arm or agency of the state involved in 
connection with such claim . . . .” 
 
 
 
4 
This notice is intended to comply with all requirements of the law 
and all applicable statutes, ordinances, rules, and regulations. . . . If you 
believe this notice does not comply in any way with the notice requirement 
of the governing bodies of the State of Michigan and/or MDOC, or with an 
statute, ordinance, rule or regulation, you should immediately notify by 
written notice. Any additional information required by statute[,] ordinance, 
rule, or regulation will be promptly furnished. 
After Fairley filed her complaint with the court, defendant responded with more 
than 20 affirmative defenses. Although none of these defenses argued that plaintiff’s 
notice of intent to file a claim was defective, defendant MDOC filed a motion for 
summary disposition arguing that plaintiff’s notice of intent to file a claim failed to meet 
the standards set out in MCL 600.6431(1). The Court of Claims denied defendant’s 
motion for summary disposition, citing Kielb v Wayne State University Board of 
Governors, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 2, 
2012 (Docket No. 305927) in which the Court held that a defendant waives an issue of 
noncompliance with MCL 600.6431 if it is not pleaded as an affirmative defense. The 
Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished opinion per curiam.3  
B.  STONE v MICHIGAN STATE POLICE 
Lori Stone injured her neck when her stopped car was struck by two Michigan 
State Police patrol cars on May 19, 2007. Following the accident, Stone underwent 
surgery to fuse two of her neck vertebrae.  
Stone subsequently filed a notice of intent to file a claim with the Court of Claims. 
As was the case in Fairley, the parties do not dispute the timeliness of the notice or that, 
                                              
3 Fairley v Mich Dep’t of Corrections, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of 
Appeals, issued June 10, 2014 (Docket No. 315594). 
 
 
 
5 
at the time of filing, this notice plainly stated the facts surrounding the accident including 
the location of the accident and the parties involved. The notice concluded with the 
statement “I declare that the statements above are true to the best of my information, 
knowledge, and belief.” The notice, undated, was signed by plaintiff and signed and 
“respectfully submitted” by her attorney, John Kline. Nevertheless, more than two years 
after responding to plaintiff’s complaint, defendant filed a motion for summary 
disposition arguing that the notice supplied by plaintiff’s counsel failed to meet the 
requirements of MCL 600.6431(1). Specifically, at the hearing on the motion, defendant 
argued: 
What these notices are about is governmental immunity. It’s exactly 
about putting up . . . restraints on cases that can be brought against the 
State. The Supreme Court can’t be more clear, if you don’t meet the 
requirements you don’t abrogate governmental immunity. And the issue 
isn’t what verify or verification means, it’s what verify before an officer 
authorized to administer oaths means, and there’s just no evidence 
anywhere in this notice, the notice itself, that it was verified before an 
officer authorized to administer oaths. 
The Court of Claims agreed with defendant and signed an order granting summary 
disposition in its favor. In an unpublished opinion per curiam, the Court of Appeals 
reversed, concluding that the Court of Claims had erred and that the “the statute [MCL 
600.6431(1)] does not . . . require that evidence of the oath or affirmation be on the face 
of the notice.”4 The panel further stated that a failure to comply with “purely procedural 
                                              
4 Stone v Dep’t of State Police, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, 
issued July 8, 2014 (Docket No. 314848) p 7.  
 
 
 
6 
pre-requisites,” such as those enumerated in MCL 600.6431, was an affirmative defense 
that must be timely raised or is waived.5 The case is now before this Court on appeal.   
II.  STANDARD OF REVIEW 
This Court reviews de novo a lower court’s decision to grant or deny a motion for 
summary disposition.6 Further, the meaning of the final provision in MCL 600.6431(1)—
requiring the notice to be “signed and verified by the claimant before an officer 
authorized to administer oaths”—is a question of statutory interpretation, which we 
likewise review de novo.7 The primary goal when interpreting a statute is to discern the 
intent of the Legislature by focusing on the most “reliable evidence” of that intent, the 
language of the statute itself.8 When legislative intent is clear from the language, no 
further construction is required or permitted.9 
III.  ANALYSIS 
The issue in these cases is whether plaintiffs’ notices were “signed and verified by 
the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths” and if not, whether an 
                                              
5 Id. at 7, quoting Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Mich, 302 Mich App 208, 212-
213; 840 NW2d 730 (2013). 
6 McCahan v Brennan, 492 Mich 730, 735; 822 NW2d 747 (2012). 
7 Spectrum Health Hosp v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Mich, 492 Mich 503, 515; 821 
NW2d 117 (2012).  
8 Id. 
9 Id. at 534, citing Sun Valley Foods Co v Ward, 460 Mich 230, 236; 596 NW2d 119 
(1999).  
 
 
 
7 
ineffective notice in a case involving governmental immunity must nonetheless be 
pleaded as an affirmative defense or be waived.   
Under the government tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., 
governmental agencies are broadly shielded from tort liability. Here, the defendants are 
two such agencies: the Department of Corrections and the Michigan State Police. 
However, the accidents involving plaintiffs Fairley and Stone are alleged to fall within 
the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity.10 In accordance with MCL 
691.1410(1), a claim satisfying an exception to governmental immunity against a state 
agency must be “brought in the manner provided in [the Revised Judicature Act],” 
including MCL 600.6431.  That is, while MCL 600.6431 does not “confer governmental 
immunity,” it establishes conditions precedent for avoiding the governmental immunity 
conferred by the GTLA, which expressly incorporates MCL 600.6431.11 As a result, 
plaintiffs must adhere to the conditions precedent in MCL 600.6431(1) to successfully 
expose the defendant state agencies to liability.  
It is well established that governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense, 
but is instead a characteristic of government. Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 198; 649 
NW2d 47 (2002). “[I]t is the responsibility of the party seeking to impose liability on a 
                                              
10 MCL 691.1405. 
11 This is contrary to the Court of Appeals’ observation in Fairley that “the text of the 
statute makes no mention of governmental immunity” and “rather than precluding the 
filing of suit against the state . . . establishes procedures for doing so.”  Fairley, unpub 
op, at 2.  
 
 
 
8 
governmental agency to demonstrate that its case falls within one of the exceptions [to 
governmental immunity].”  Id. at 201. Furthermore, as we explained in McCahan:  
[W]hen the Legislature specifically qualifies the ability to bring a claim 
against the state or its subdivisions on a plaintiff’s meeting certain notice 
requirements that the plaintiff fails to meet, no saving construction—such 
as requiring a defendant to prove actual prejudice—is allowed.[12] 
In MCL 600.6431(1), the Legislature has qualified a claimant’s ability to bring a 
claim against the state by requiring that “the claim or notice shall be signed and verified 
by the claimant before an officer authorized to administer oaths.” While the Court of 
Appeals observed that “[t]he statute does not prescribe the kind of inquiry that must be 
made nor does any language in the statute require that evidence of the oath or affirmance 
be on the face of the notice,”13 this Court’s decision in McCahan v Brennan provided 
insight into the purpose to be served by the notice provision: 
[T]he Legislature has established a clear procedure that eliminates any 
ambiguity about whether an attempted notice is effective. A claimant who 
complies with MCL 600.6431 need not worry about whether a notice was 
properly received and processed by the correct governmental entity. By the 
same token, state entities can be secure knowing that only timely, verified 
claims in notices filed with the Court of Claims can give rise to potential 
liability . . . .[14] 
                                              
12 McCahan, 492 Mich at 746; relied on in Zelek v Michigan, unpublished opinion per 
curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 16, 2012 (Docket No. 305191).  
13 Stone v Mich State Police, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, 
issued July 8, 2014 (Docket No. 314848), p 7. 
14 McCahan, 492 Mich at 744 n 24; see Rowland v Washtenaw Co Rd Comm, 477 Mich 
197, 212; 731 NW 2d (2007) (stating that “additional reasons . . . for requiring notice [in 
cases 
involving 
governmental 
immunity] . . . include[] . . . creating 
[monetary] 
reserves . . . reducing the uncertainty of the extent of future demands, or even to force a 
claimant to an early choice regarding how to proceed”). 
 
 
 
9 
If a notice, such as those here, fails to show that it was signed and verified before an 
officer authorized to administer oaths, how would a governmental entity be assured that 
the notice, which seeks to impose liability, was actually verified? It is for this very reason 
that MCL 600.6431 requires more than the mere act of verification and instead requires 
some proof of that verification—that, as defendant states, “the notice bear an indication 
that the signature was signed and sworn to before an officer authorized to administer 
oaths.”15 
A.  APPLICATION TO FAIRLEY 
We are satisfied that there is no material factual dispute regarding the notice 
submitted by plaintiff Fairley, as it is undisputed that she failed to sign the notice of 
intent. Accordingly, plaintiff did not submit a notice “signed by the claimant” as required 
by the plain language of the statute. Further, because the MDOC is a state agency entitled 
to governmental immunity, we conclude that defective notice need not be pleaded as an 
affirmative defense because defendants are presumed to be entitled to governmental 
immunity, and the burden is on plaintiff to prove that one of the exceptions to 
governmental immunity is applicable.  
For these reasons, we conclude that plaintiff Fairley’s notice was insufficient to 
maintain a claim against MDOC and, as a result, Fairley’s claim should be dismissed. 
                                              
15 Moreover, as this Court stated in Rowland, common sense counsels in favor of this 
outcome, given that “the Legislature is not even required to provide [any] exception to 
governmental immunity, it surely has the authority to allow such suits only upon 
compliance with rational limits.”  Id. at 212. 
 
 
 
10 
Accordingly, the Court of Claims improperly denied defendant’s motion for summary 
disposition.  
B.  APPLICATION TO STONE 
We also reject plaintiff Stone’s notice for the similar reason that it was not clear 
from the face of the document that it was verified “before an officer authorized to 
administer oaths.”  We are unpersuaded that the belated affidavit of plaintiff’s counsel 
asserting his dual role as attorney and notary public can cure this deficiency. Plaintiff 
Stone’s notice was either unverified but timely or untimely but verified, and in either 
circumstance it fails to meet the conditions precedent to maintaining a suit against the 
Michigan State Police.16 
For these reasons, we likewise conclude that Stone’s claim should be dismissed. 
Accordingly, the Court of Claims properly granted defendant summary disposition and 
the Court of Appeals erred by reversing that order.  
IV.  CONCLUSION 
In Fairley, we hold that the lower courts erred by concluding that defendant was 
not entitled to summary disposition based on the plaintiff’s failure to comply with the 
notice requirements of MCL 600.6431(1). In Stone, we hold that the Court of Appeals 
erred by reversing the Court of Claims’ ruling granting defendant’s motion for summary 
disposition on that same basis. Accordingly, we reverse both judgments of the Court of 
Appeals. Because the notices supplied by each plaintiff failed to meet the requirements of 
                                              
16 MCL 600.6431(1) and (3). 
 
 
 
11 
MCL 600.6431(1), plaintiffs failed to defeat the protection of governmental immunity to 
which MDOC and the Michigan State Police are entitled.17  
In lieu of granting defendants’ application for leave to appeal, we reverse the 
judgment of the Court of Appeals in Fairley and remand that case to the Court of Claims 
for entry of an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendant.  We also 
reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in Stone and remand that case to the Court 
of Claims for reentry of its original order granting summary disposition in favor of 
defendant. 
 
 
Robert P. Young, Jr. 
 
Stephen J. Markman 
 
Mary Beth Kelly 
 
 
Brian K. Zahra 
 
Bridget M. McCormack 
 
David F. Viviano 
 
Richard H. Bernstein 
 
 
                                              
17 Again, Fairley and Stone present questions of the adequacy of notice in a governmental 
immunity case. Thus, and contrary to both Court of Appeals opinions, the outcome of 
these cases is entirely separate from the analysis on statutory notice provisions in medical 
malpractice actions found in Tyra v Organ Procurement Agency of Mich, 302 Mich App 
208 (2013), oral argument on application granted 497 Mich 910 (2014); compare Costa v 
Community Emergency Med Servs, Inc, 475 Mich 403; 716 NW2d 236 (2006) (involving 
a medical malpractice claim against defendants entitled to governmental immunity).