Court Opinion

ID: 9705041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:55:27.372664+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:07:08.143706
License: Public Domain

Coleman, J.
(concurring). I have signed Justice Ryan’s opinion because I agree "that § 1.04.03(c) of the 1970 Standard Specifications for Highway Con*199struction is not an agency rule within the meaning of § 7 of the Administrative Procedures Act”. I also agree that "the circuit court was without jurisdiction to entertain the complaint for declaratory relief’. Under the circumstances of this case, plaintiff’s exclusive remedy is in the Court of Claims.
I write to emphasize several points.
First, there has been no showing that the highway department’s use of standard specifications was an attempt to evade or circumvent the APA.
Second, adopting Justice Levin’s analysis would permit plaintiff's to institute parallel actions against the state — one in the circuit court, another in the Court of Claims. Recent experience has demonstrated how confusing and time consuming such a procedure can be. See In re Weldon, 397 Mich 225; 244 NW2d 827 (1976).
Third, Justice Levin’s analysis would force state agencies either to discard standard specifications or move to adopt them as rules under the APA. The former is inefficient, costly in both time and money. The latter is cumbersome and would subject the policy and contract decisions of state agencies to frequent circuit court review.
This last point is of great concern to me. Our decision cannot be limited to the highway department. It would apply to all the many agencies of state government. It would significantly increase the caseload of an already overburdened circuit court. Delay, confusion, frustration are predictable.
It is not necessary to rely on the circuit courts for a proper forum in which to resolve disputes between contractors and a state department. The Legislature has provided a forum — the Court of Claims. It has exclusive jurisdiction "[t]o hear and determine all claims and demands * * * against *200the state and any of its departments”. MCLA 600.6419; MSA 27A.6419.
Greenfield is seeking a declaratory judgment on a contract dispute. The Court of Claims can provide such relief. Its "[p]ractice and procedure * * * shall be in accordance with the statutes and court rules prescribing the practice in the circuit courts”. MCLA 600.6422; MSA 27A.6422. GCR 1963, 521 provides for declaratory judgments which Honigman and Hawkins say have "been used to good effect in Michigan in a wide range of cases involving matters such as the meaning and effect of a contract”.* Since enactment of the Revised Judicature Act, there is nothing in the statutes to prevent the Court of Claims from giving such relief.
Greenfield should be permitted to file its claim in the Court of Claims even if the statutory limitation period has run. It has acted in good faith. The circuit court did assume jurisdiction. Greenfield had no reason to believe it was in the wrong forum. Certainly the limitation period should be tolled while a disposition — trial and appellate— was made.

 2 Honigman & Hawkins, Michigan Court Rules Annotated (2d ed), p 684. — Reporter.