Effect of MCL 600.5851b(1)(b) on the accrual date for civil claims based on allegations of criminal sexual conduct (CSC) against minors; Retroactivity; LaFontaine Saline, Inc v Chrysler Group, LLC

The court held that MCL 600.5851b(1)(b) creates a discovery rule for measuring the accrual date for the limitations period for civil claims for CSC occurring after its passage. It further held that the statute’s discovery rule “does not apply retroactively to revive limitations periods that have already expired.” As a result, plaintiff’s negligence claim was barred by the statute of limitations because it “would require retroactive application of” the statute. Thus, the court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, which remanded for entry of summary disposition to defendant-Diocese. The case concerned “the effect of MCL 600.5851b(1)(b) on the accrual date for civil claims based on allegations of” CSC against minors. The first question presented was “whether the Legislature intended that MCL 600.5851b(1)(b) operate as a discovery rule to toll the accrual date for claims” based on CSC against minors. The court determined that it did. “Reading the statute in its entirety, it is clear that the Legislature intended to allow minor victims of [CSC] to bring a cause of action either by the time they turn 28 (an extension of the otherwise applicable statute of limitations) or within three years of when they discovered, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence should have discovered, their injuries and the causal relationship between their injuries and the [CSC] (discovery rule-based accrual), whichever is later.” The next question was “whether this statutory discovery rule, enacted in 2018,” applied here, where “the claims accrued and the statute of limitations had already expired under the relevant statutes that were previously in effect.” The court concluded the LaFontaine factors did “not support retroactive application of Subsection (1)(b). The plain language of the statute does not clearly indicate that the discovery rule accrual method described in Subsection (1)(b) should apply retroactively to resuscitate stale claims. In stark contrast,” Subsection (3) sets forth such intent in clear terms. The second and fourth factors did not apply, and the court declined to decide “whether the statute would impair a vested right under the third factor when the statutory text is dispositive.” Because plaintiff’s complaint alleged “damages caused by sexual abuse that occurred nearly 30 years ago, it" was untimely.

Concurring in part, dissenting in part, Justice Zahra (joined by Chief Justice Clement and Justice Viviano) disagreed “with the majority opinion’s understanding of MCL 600.5851b(1) as affecting the accrual date for the limitations period for claims of” CSC and thus, dissented “from Part III(A) of the majority opinion.” But he concurred “with the majority opinion’s conclusion in Part III(B) that the statute does not apply retroactively and with the majority opinion’s resultant holding that the Court of Appeals correctly held that plaintiff’s negligence claim is barred by the statute of limitations.”