of Claims LC No. 15-000224-MD
Before: Gadola, P.J., and Jansen and Saad, JJ.
appeals the trial court's order that granted
defendant's motion for summary disposition pursuant to
MCR 2.116(C)(7). For the reasons provided below, we affirm.
was a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Officer who worked
at the Blue Water Bridge. On April 8, 2015, plaintiff stepped
into a hole in one of the toll booth lanes and injured
18, 2015, plaintiff served defendant with a notice of intent
to file a claim. And on October 5, 2015, plaintiff filed suit
in the court of claims. After defendant initially moved for
summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), plaintiff filed an
amended complaint, wherein he claimed that three exceptions
to governmental immunity applied. In Count I, plaintiff
alleged that defendant was not immune from suit based on the
roadway exception; in Count II, plaintiff alleged that
defendant was not immune from suit because it was engaging in
a proprietary function at the time of the incident; and in
Count III, plaintiff alleged that defendant was not immune
from tort liability because of the public-building exception
to governmental immunity.
thereafter filed an amended motion for summary disposition.
Defendant argued that Counts I and III were barred because
plaintiff failed to file his claim in the court of claims
within 120 days, which violates the notice requirement of MCL
691.1404. Defendant also argued that Count II was barred
because its operation of the Blue Water Bridge was not a
proprietary function. The trial court agreed and ultimately
granted defendant's motion on all counts.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
review a trial court's decision on a motion for summary
disposition de novo. Moraccini v Sterling Heights,
296 Mich.App. 387, 391; 822 N.W.2d 799 (2012). Summary
disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(7) if a claim
is barred because of, among other things, "immunity
granted by law." When reviewing a motion for summary
disposition under this subrule, a court accepts "all
well-pleaded factual allegations as true and construe[s] them
in favor of the plaintiff, unless other evidence contradicts
them." Dextrom v Wexford Co, 287 Mich.App. 406,
428; 789 N.W.2d 211 (2010). Further,
[i]f any affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other
documentary evidence are submitted, the court must consider
them to determine whether there is a genuine issue of
material fact. If no facts are in dispute, and if reasonable
minds could not differ regarding the legal effect of those
facts, the question whether the claim is barred is an issue
for the court. [Id. at 429 (citations omitted).]
review issues of statutory interpretation de novo. City
of Riverview v Sibley Limestone, 270 Mich.App. 627, 630;
716 N.W.2d 615 (2006).
Michigan's governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL
691.1401 et seq., governmental agencies are immune
from tort liability when they are "engaged in the
exercise or discharge of a governmental function." MCL
691.1407(1). However, the act provides several exceptions to
this broad grant of immunity. As noted, plaintiff contends that
three exceptions are relevant: (1) the ...