Action alleging breach of warranty, negligence, & gross negligence arising from an alleged defect in a vehicle; Limitations period; Accrual; MCL 600.5827; Insanity tolling; MCL 600.5851(2); Lemmerman v Frank; Leave to amend; MCR 2.118; Prejudice; Futility; Breach of warranty; Discovery rule accrual; MCL 600.5833; Comparing Southgate Cmty Sch Dist v West Side Constr Co; Distinguishing Bowman v St Johns Hosp & Med Ctr; “Product liability action”; MCL 600.2945(h); Fraudulent concealment tolling; MCL 600.5855; Tice Estate v Tice

The court held that the trial court erred by finding plaintiff did not qualify as insane for tolling purposes. But it did not err by finding that her breach of warranty claim was not subject to the discovery rule, or that she did not plead allegations sufficient to sustain her argument for tolling based on fraudulent concealment. She sued defendant for breach of warranty, negligence, and gross negligence arising from an alleged defect in her vehicle. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant. On appeal, the court agreed with plaintiff that there remained a question of fact as to whether the statute of limitations was tolled because of her insanity, which made the grant of summary disposition to defendant, and the denial of her associated request for leave to amend, improper. The evidence showed she “had no ability to focus on anything but her husband’s care and was no longer able to manage her life independently around the time of her injury.” The additional circumstances in her life created a question of fact as to insanity tolling. As a result, the trial court abused its discretion in denying her motion for leave to amend. “Nothing in the record show[ed] that [her] request, which did not occur on the eve of trial and sought amendments related only to the insanity-tolling issue already raised in responding to” defendant’s motion for summary disposition, would be prejudicial. And because she established a question of fact as to insanity tolling, her proposed amendment was not futile. But the court rejected plaintiff’s contention that her breach of warranty claim was subject to a discovery rule of accrual and was timely filed. “[W]hether a discovery rule applies to the claim because it is a breach of warranty claim, or the default accrual ‘at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done’ rule applies, all of” her claims accrued at the time of the accident. The court also rejected her argument that defendant’s fraudulent concealment of her claim tolled the statute of limitations. Plaintiff, “who had a firm conviction she placed her vehicle in park, was compelled to infer that a defect in the vehicle caused the accident, and so was effectively aware of a possible cause of action immediately after the accident. Because [defendant] could not conceal what [she] was immediately aware of, there cannot be fraudulent concealment that tolled the statute of limitations under MCL 600.5855.” Reversed in part and remanded.