Subsequently, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in circuit court on April 24, 2013. At trial court, defendant filed a summary of disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), alleging plaintiff’s claim was time barred because she failed to file her claim within the 90-day period, and the three-year period of limitations related to injuries to persons and property under MCL 600.5805, was inapplicable. Defendant also filed a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (10) alleging that Plaintiff’s arguments were conclusory.

atute of Limitations: 3 years. Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 5-101. Maryland’s recognition of the discovery rule delays accrual until “the plaintiff knows or through the exercise of due diligence, should know of injury, its probable cause, and either manufacturer wrongdoing or product defect.” Pennwalt Corp. v. Nasios, 550 A.2d 1155, 1165 (Md. 1988).Statute of Repose: None.MassachusettsStatute of Limitations: 3 years. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 260 § 2A. Massachusetts applies the discovery rule. The limitations period begins to run “when a plaintiff discovers, or any earlier date when she should reasonably have discovered, that she has been harmed or may have been harmed by the defendant’s conduct.” Bowen v. Eli Lilly & Co., 557 N.E.2d 739, 741 (Mass. 1990). A plaintiff must have “(1) knowledge or sufficient notice that she was harmed and (2) knowledge or sufficient notice of what the cause of harm was.” Id. at 742.Statute of Repose: None.MichiganMichiganStatute of Limitations: 3 years. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2), (12). Michigan does not recognize the discovery rule, and the action accrues when the wrong occurs. SeeTrentadue v. Gorton, 479 Mich. 378, 407 (2007); Good v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp., No. 15-CV-10133, 2015 WL 8175256, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Dec. 8, 2015) (finding that the limitations period began when the plaintiff began experiencing symptoms two months after her surgery); Smith v. Stryker Corp., No. 294916, 2011 WL 445646, at *1 (Mich. Ct. App. Feb. 8, 2011) (finding that harm occurred and the claim accrued upon use of the device).Statute of Repose: None, though after a product “has been in use for not less than 10 years, the plaintiff, in proving a prima facie case, must do so without the benefit of any presumption.” Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 600.5805(12).MinnesotaStatute of Limitations: Strict liability claims are subject to a 4-year limitation period. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 541.05(2). Negligence claims are subject to a 6-year limitation period. Minn. Stat. Ann. § 541.05(5). Minnesota appl

a plaintiff’s damages. Michigan law makes exemplary damages available only if the plaintiff demands a retraction and gives the defendant a reasonable time to retract. MCL 600.2911(2)(b). The amount of time considered “reasonable” is a question of fact. Hope-Jackson v. Washington, 311 Mich App 602, 629; 877 NW2d 736 (2015).Generally, a retraction must be published or communicated in “substantially the same manner” as the original statement. MCL 600.2911(2)(b). While issuing such a retraction does not preclude an award of exemplary damages, it can reduce a plaintiff’s damages as evidence of mitigation. See Peisner v. Detroit Free Press, Inc, 421 Mich 125, 130; 364 NW2d 600 (1984) (a published retraction is admissible on question of defendant’s good faith and in reducing damages).2. One Year Statute of LimitationsWatching the clock is particularly important in defamation cases. That’s because defamation cases are the only civil actions in Michigan with a one-year statute of limitations. MCL 600.5805(11). Generally, the statute begins to run when a defamatory statement is “published,” meaning the date the statement was communicated to a third party. Even if the person defamed had no knowledge of the statement at the time of publication, the statute still begins to run at publication. Grist v. Upjohn Co, 1 Mich App 72, 81; 134 NW2d 358 (1965).Importantly, each “publication” constitutes a separate cause of action. Id. For example, two statements made on different dates — even if they concern the same topic — are two separate causes of action for purposes of the one-year statute of limitations. Therefore, joining separate acts in the same pleading only works if each act is distinctly within the statute of limitations.3. Claims Based on Statements Made in a Police ReportStatements made in a police report are absolutely privileged in defamation cases, meaning plaintiffs can’t use such statements as the basis of a defamation claim no matter how malicious they may be. Michigan courts have co

Michigan Michigan maintains a three-year statute of limitations for tort claims arising from property damage. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2). When an automobile damages a building, however, and the building owner seeks to recover from the liability insurer for the automobile’s operator, a one-year statute of limitations applies.

In Henry v. Dow Chemical Co., No. 328716, the Court of Appeals determined that the statute of limitations begins to run when harm is done to the plaintiff. A defendant’s act does not cause the statute of limitations to run pursuant to MCL 600.5805(10); rather, the starting point is when harm is done to the plaintiff. This is a long-running case that was discussed here previously.

The Michigan Supreme Court, in Haksluoto v. Mt. Clemens Regional Medical Center, No. 153723, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and held that when a timely notice of intent (NOI) is filed, it preserves the day it was filed as one to be used after the required notice period of 182 days ends and the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions resumes. MCL 600.5805(6) sets a two-year limitations period for medical malpractice actions, and MCL 600.2912b(1) requires a potential medical malpractice plaintiff to provide notice of at least 182 days to a potential defendant before filing suit. The two-year statute of limitations period may be tolled if a potential plaintiff files a timely and proper NOI, and there is still time in the statute of limitations to toll.

Three years: A Mini Tort lawsuit must be filed within three years of any car accident or truck accident that caused the car repairs and vehicle damage for which the Mini Tort recovery is being sought. (MCL 600.5805(10))

The court reasoned that Bess sent a letter outlining Bernstein’s legal obligations to the companies, which was the last date on which Bess rendered legal services to Bernstein. The Complaint was filed on April 28, 2008, exactly two years after the date of the letter, which is timely under MCL 600.5805(6). The Michigan Supreme Court will consider whether Bernstein’s claim for legal malpractice accrued at the time Bess discontinued the provision of generalized legal services to Bernstein and whether those services were “the matters out of which the claim for malpractice arose” under MCL 600.5838, see Levy v Martin, 463 Mich 478 (2001).

[20]Clergy members do enjoy a qualified privilege under State law with respect to defamation claims.[1]Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420, 421 (Mich. 2005). [2] M.C.L. § 600.5805 (1), (9) [3]Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek, 427 Mich. 157, 195 (1986). [4]Schultz v. Guldenstein, 144 Mich. 640, 641 (1906).