Governmental immunity; A public university’s entitlement to immunity; MCL 691.1407(1); MCL 691.1401(a) & (g); Vicarious liability; “Governmental function”; MCL 691.1401(b); The proprietary function exception; MCL 691.1413; Herman v Detroit; Breach of contract; Miller-Davis Co v Ahrens Constr, Inc; Whether a claim is time-barred; Condition precedent to filing a claim against the state; MCL 600.6431(1); Defamation; Reighard v ESPN, Inc; Absolute privilege; Eddington v Torrez; Qualified privilege; Rosenboom v Vanek; Leave to amend; Sanders v Perfecting Church; Futility; Wormsbacher v Phillip R Seaver Title Co

The court held that the Court of Claims did not err by granting defendants-university, board of trustees, and affiliate (Franz) summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff sued defendants alleging a variety of contract and tort claims related to an employment relationship. The Court of Claims granted summary disposition for defendants and denied plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend. On appeal, the court rejected plaintiff’s argument that the Court of Claims erred by finding his tort claims against the university defendants were barred by governmental immunity, noting he “did not plead any facts to avoid application of governmental immunity,” and even if he had, the university defendants were entitled to immunity. The court also rejected his claim that the trial court erred by finding his contract claims were time-barred, holding that because he untimely filed his notice of intent his “breach of contract and specific performance claims relating to the alleged promise for full-time” employment were properly dismissed, as was his breach of contract claim relating to unapproved invoices. Next, the court rejected his contentions that Franz was not entitled to the application of privilege as to his tort claims because she knew he did not commit a crime, and that there was a genuine issue of fact as to whether Franz acted with actual malice. First, “Franz’s police report was absolutely privileged and could not give rise to an actionable defamation claim.” Second, there was no factual basis for the claim that Franz’s statements were false or inaccurate. Finally, the court rejected his argument that the Court of Claims abused its discretion by denying his motion for leave to amend the complaint to include additional factual background and legal claims, noting it “correctly concluded that the proposed amendment was futile.” Affirmed.