In Nuculovic v Hill, a published opinion, the Court of Appeals barred plaintiff's claim for failure to provide notice within the 60-day timeframe established by the Metropolitan Transportation Authorities Act of 1967, MCL § 124.401 et seq.  This is the second transit related appellate decision in the past month that narrowly construed MCL 124.419. See our discussion of Pollard v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation here.

In Hill, plaintiff was driving near a highway entrance ramp and collided with a bus owned by defendant, SMART Bus, Inc.  More than 60 days after the accident, plaintiff alleged injuries and brought this action against SMART and the individual driver. The lower court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition because plaintiff failed to comply with MCL 124.419's requirement that "written notice of any claim based upon injury to persons or property shall be served upon the authority no later than 60 days from the occurrence...."

On appeal, plaintiff argued the notice requirement was satisfied because SMART received a copy of the incident's police report and because both the bus driver and his supervisor prepared reports regarding the accident. 

The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the informal notice described above did not satisfy service requirements as detailed by court rule.  Further, even if the receipt of such reports constituted notice of an occurrence, it did not constitute notice of a claim.

Michigan Court Rules 2.103-2.105 clearly set specific requirements for the service of process.  Although SMART possessed various reports of the accident, plaintiff never "served" SMART with notice of her claim for injuries as defined by court rules.

Further, the reports do not provide notice of a "claim" as required by MCL 124.419.  Plaintiff failed to show that, from the police reports, the defendant authority had any knowledge that plaintiff intended to file a claim for her injury, much less what that claim would actually be.

Plaintiff also argued that MCL 124.419 only applied to bus passengers or claims based on common-carrier liability.  The Court rejected these arguments because the language of the statute clearly states it applies to "any claim based upon injury...."  Thus, the statute applies to claims arising out of automobile accidents, claims against the authority as owner (under the owner liability statute) and claims against individual drivers.