Court Opinion

ID: 9665674
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:54:37.286983+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:17.664568
License: Public Domain

Quinn, P. J.
(dissenting). I dissent. MCLA § 257.1118 (Stat Ann 1970 Cum Supp § 9.2818) requires service of notice of intent to claim against the fund on the secretary of state within six months of the date that the cause of action accrues. The majority opinion accurately states, “Plaintiff admits that no claim was made against the Fund until about seven months and eight days following the accident.”
This case is not one of substantial compliance (see Stacey v. Sankovich [1969], 19 Mich App 688); it is a case of noncompliance. Substantial compliance I can accept (see Curtis v. Biermacher [1971], *69930 Mich App 503, decided by this same panel and released February 16,1971).
I too feel sorry for this plaintiff, but the majority opinion does violence to the authority of courts to construe legislation. “The court can but construe the statute in question as it reads, and not as equitable considerations might impel us to do.” Bankers Trust Company of Detroit v. Russell (1933), 263 Mich 677, 684, 685.
I vote to affirm.