Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805

Section 600.5805(9) gives negligence and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims a three-year limitations period, while § 600.5805(2) gives assault or battery actions a two-year period.

Connie Thurman John Thurman v. Daimlerchrysler, Inc., James Stanford Pittman, Jointly and Severally · filed 2004-11-19(9), (2)

The period of limitations applicable to claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence is three years. ... The statute of limitation for an action alleging assault or battery is two years.

Section 600.5805(8) provides a three-year statute of limitations for Michigan civil-rights claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Hawkins v. Spitters · filed 2003-10-24(8)

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years.

The 2-year malpractice limitations period in subsection (6) does not govern this breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim; loss of naming rights falls under subsection (10)'s 3-year period.

Meyer & Anna Prentis Family Foundation, Inc. v. Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute · filed 2005-06-07(6), (10)

We disagree with HMSC that the period of limitations for malpractice under MCL 600.5805(6) should apply. The conduct required to constitute a breach of fiduciary duty requires a more culpable state of mind than the negligence required for malpractice. ... Therefore, plaintiffs loss of naming rights was within the purview of MCL 600.5805(10) and was subject to a three-year period of limitations.

Section 600.5805(10) provides a three-year limitations period for the listed federal and state tort claims, while § 600.5805(2) provides a two-year period for false arrest and imprisonment and assault and battery claims.

Curran v. City of Dearborn · filed 2013-07-31(10), (2)

Similarly, the limits that apply to the various state law claims in the complaint are as follows: two years for false arrest and imprisonment (count VIII) and assault and battery (count IX), Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2); and three years for intentional infliction of emotion distress (count XI), negligent infliction of emotional distress (count XII), conversion (XIII), gross negligence (count XIV), and negligent supervision (count XV), Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10).

Section 600.5805(10) supplies Michigan’s three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims, including the period borrowed for § 1983 claims.

Zanecki v. Health Alliance Plan of Detroit · filed 2014-08-15(10)

As this is a § 1983 case, “state law determines what statute of limitations applies” and “federal law determines when the statutory period begins to run.” Harrison v. Mich., 722 F.3d 768, 772 (6th Cir. 2013). Michigan’s three-year statute of limitations applies, Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10), and, under federal law, “begins to run when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know that act the providing the basis of his or her injury has occurred.” Collyer v. Darling, 98 F.3d 211, 220 (6th Cir. 1996).

Subsection 5805(10) gives conversion claims a three-year statute of limitations.

Georgis v. Shammami · filed 2015-06-18(10)

A conversion claim is governed by a three-year statute of limitations. MCL 600.5805(10). The claim accrues when the wrong upon which the claim is based is done, not when damage results.

Section 600.5805(10) does not bar a claim classified as arising from contractual duties rather than tort.

Metcalf v. MacKinac County Road Commission · filed 2015-12-22(10)

On appeal defendant raises three issues. The first two, whether plaintiffs’ claim is barred by governmental immunity under the GTLA and whether plaintiffs’ claim is barred by the statute of limitations under MCL 600.5805(10), essentially seek to have this Court determine whether plaintiff’s claim is for a breach of contract or a tort . Plaintiffs assert that theirs is a contract claim; defendant asserts it is a tort claim. We conclude after viewing the pleadings and evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiffs that plaintiffs have presented a contract claim. Consequently, the trial court, in concluding that plaintiffs’ sought damages for a tort, erred in granting summary disposition to defendants under MCR 2.116(C)(7). ... The trial court erred in concluding that plaintiffs’ claim arose in tort, not contract. Therefore, neither the statute of limitations nor the GTLA barred plaintiffs’ claim.

Subsection 600.5805(10) provides a three-year limitations period for damages claims involving injury to a person or property, including claims under Michigan’s Civil Rights Act.

Major v. Village of Newberry · filed 2016-08-02(10)

Contrary to the trial court’s conclusion, the appropriate period of limitations is three years. MCL 600.5805(10) provides, “Except as otherwise provided in this section, the period of limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury for all actions to recover damages for the death of a person, or for injury to a person or property.”

Section 600.5805(9) gives defamation claims a one-year limitations period that begins when the defamatory statement is made, not when it is republished or causes harm.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Max Rehab Physical Therapy, LLC · filed 2019-12-02(9)

The limitations period for a defamation claim is one year under Michigan law. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(9). “A defamation claim accrues when ‘the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.’” Mitan v. Campbell, 706 N.W.2d 420, 422 (Mich. 2005) (quoting Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5827). This means that the statute of limitations begins to run when the alleged defamatory statement is made, not when it is republished or causes harm to the plaintiff. Id.

Section 600.5805 imposes a three-year statute of limitations on civil-rights claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed in Michigan.

Rogers 447843 v. Mackie · filed 2020-07-15(10), (2)

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2); ... Plaintiff’s complaint is untimely. ... However, he did not file his complaint until March 17, 2020, more than two weeks past Michigan’s three-year limit for the latest of these claims. ... Accordingly, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff’s claims prior to and including March 1, 2017, because they are barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 600.5805(10) imposes a three-year statute of limitations on civil-rights suits filed in Michigan under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Johnson 343032 v. Silliman · filed 2021-08-06(10)

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years.

Section 600.5805(2) supplies a three-year statute of limitations for civil-rights suits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Michigan.

Miller 418575 v. Edger · filed 2022-04-26(2)

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under Section 1983, the statute of limitations is three years. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2); Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 44 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Stafford v. Vaughn, No. 97-2239, 1999 WL 96990, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999).

Section 600.5805(2) supplies a three-year statute of limitations for civil-rights suits filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Michigan.

Atkins 742687 v. Savoie · filed 2022-12-07(2)

For purposes of claims asserted under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, state statutes of limitations and tolling principles apply. Wilson v. Garcia, 471 U.S. 261, 268–69 (1985). This means that, for civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2); Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44, 44 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Stafford v. Vaughn, No. 97-2239, 1999 WL 96990, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999).

Section 600.5805(2) imposes a three-year statute of limitations on § 1983 civil-rights suits filed in Michigan.

Burkett 733604 v. Schieber · filed 2025-05-19(2)

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2); Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Stafford v. Vaughn, No. 97-2239, 1999 WL 96990, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999).

Section 600.5805(7) imposes a three-year limitations period on actions for damages for injuries to persons or property, including nonphysical injuries to personal rights such as reputation and professional advancement.

Stringer v. Bd. of Trustees of Edward W. Sparrow Hosp. · filed 1975-07-22(7)

The right to one’s good name and to advancement in one’s chosen profession are "rights to which one is entitled by reason of being a person in the eyes of the law”. We hold, therefore, that the injuries the plaintiff complains of, arising from the type of conduct he alleges, are "injuries to persons and property” within the meaning of MCLA 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7).

Subsection (7) imposes a three-year limitation period on actions seeking damages for injuries to persons or property, regardless of whether the claim sounds in tort or contract.

Parish v. B F Goodrich Co. · filed 1975-11-25(7)

This Court has consistently held that the three-year limitational period applicable to "all other actions to recover damages for injuries to persons and property” applies without regard to whether the claim sounds in tort or contract, express or implied.* ... We conclude that the product liability claim of a consumer for personal injury against a manufacturer, whether postulated on theories of tort or contract or an amalgam of both, does not accrue for purposes of the borrowing statute until all elements of the cause of action are present.

Subsection 5805(7) imposes a three-year limitations period on actions seeking damages for injuries to persons or property, including the wrongful-discharge and fair-representation claims treated here as injury-to-person/property claims.

Glowacki v. Motor Wheel Corp. · filed 1976-02-26(7)

Accordingly, we hold that the present action which was commenced four years and three months after the alleged wrongful discharge is barred by the three-year period of MCLA 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7).

Section 600.5805 provides a three-year limitations period for other actions seeking damages for injuries to persons or property; the court held that a separate two-year governmental-agency limitation did not amend that general statute.

Williams v. Grossman · filed 1976-08-05

This argument is based on the assumption that MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111) amends MCLA 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805. We do not agree. ... MCLA 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805 became effective on January 1, 1963. MCLA 691.1411; MSA 3.996(111) became effective on July 1, 1965 and repealed MCLA 242.8; MSA 9.958. MCLA 242.8; MSA 9.958 also limited actions against governmental agencies in such situations to two years. Consequently, no change occurred in the law regarding applicable limitations on actions of this nature, and so no amendment to MCLA 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805 was occasioned in this regard. Plaintiff was subject to the same limitations period under the predecessor of MCLA 600.1411; MSA 3.996(111). We fail to see the argument here.

Section 600.5805(7) imposes a three-year limitations period on actions to recover damages for injuries to persons or property, but it does not govern an action seeking damages for breach of an indemnity contract.

Insurance Co. of North America v. Southeastern Electric Co. · filed 1979-02-05(7)

The instant plaintiff’s complaint does rest on an alleged breach of a contract to indemnify. ... The action is not one "to recover damages for injuries to persons and property”, ... but, rather, is one "to recover damages or sums due for breach of contract” so that the period of limitations is six years, running from April 5, 1973 when the indemnitee sustained the loss.

Section 600.5805(7) imposes a three-year limitations period on claims for bail-bond overcharges and constitutional due-process injuries because they are injuries to persons.

Citizens for Pre-Trial Justice v. Goldfarb · filed 1979-02-20(7)

Since there is no statute of limitations directed explicitly to suits for denial of due process, the appropriate statute must be either the three-year statute on actions for injuries to persons or property, MCL 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7), or, if this is inapplicable, the general six-year statute for all other personal actions for which no provision is elsewhere made. MCL 600.5813; MSA 27A.5813. ... I conclude that the appropriate statute here is MCL 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7). ... Because the appropriate statute of limitations is three, rather than six years for each of the counts in plaintiffs’ complaint, the description of the class certified must be amended to limit membership to those with claims accruing within three years preceding the filing of plaintiffs’ complaint.

Section 600.5805(3) imposes a two-year limitation on malpractice actions, and discovering only the alleged tortfeasor’s identity does not extend that period under Dyke v. Richard.

Walerych v. Isaac · filed 1975-08-14(3)

The two-year limitation on malpractice actions, MCLA 600.5805(3); MSA 27A.5805(3), was the basis of that order. ... Plaintiff in this case knew by at least December, 1971, that there might be a cause of action against certain physicians. Plaintiffs action against defendant was instituted more than two years from that date. We are unwilling to hold that Dyke v Richard, supra, applies here.

Section 5805(3) subjects medical-malpractice claims to a two-year statute of limitations.

Amwake v. Mercy-Memorial Hospital · filed 1979-09-20(3)

Once the arbitration agreements were revoked, Mrs. Anteau was subject to the two-year statute of limitations for medical malpractice. See MCL 600.5805(3); MSA 27A.5805(3). The second case was filed well within the two-year period and may proceed to trial.

Section 600.5805(4) imposes a two-year limitations period on medical-malpractice actions, including claims against a hospital.

Sheldon v. Sisters of Mercy Health Corp. · filed 1980-11-21(4)

The statute of limitations for malpractice is two years. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4). ... The hospital is also subject to the same statute of limitations. Norman Sheldon’s last treatment at the hospital was on March 11, 1977, and the statute began to accrue at that time. The plaintiffs filed their complaint on March 8, 1979, which was within the two-year period of limitations. ... Accordingly, accelerated judgment as to defendant hospital was improper.

Section 600.5805 sets a two-year limitations period for malpractice actions, which the court applied from the date treatment was discontinued.

Sanderfer v. Mount Clemens General Hospital · filed 1981-03-10(3) (4)

At the time this action was commenced, MCL 600.5805(3); MSA 27A.5805(3), now MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4), set a two-year statute of limitations for actions alleging malpractice. Actions alleging malpractice accrued at the time treatment was discontinued. ... In this case, plaintiffs’ action accrued on December 22, 1975. ... Since the plaintiffs’ complaint was filed after the statute had run, the trial court did not err in granting defendants’ motion for accelerated judgment.

Section 5805(3) imposes a two-year limitations period on actions charging malpractice, including legal malpractice claims against attorneys.

Sam v. Balardo · filed 1981-07-13(3)

We hold that a legal malpractice suit is subject to the two-year statute of limitations pursuant to MCL 600.5805(3); MSA 27A.5805(3).

Section 600.5805(4) imposes a two-year limitations period when a medical-malpractice action is properly pleaded against a hospital.

Adkins v. Annapolis Hospital · filed 1982-05-21(4)

We believe that the Legislature has clearly indicated that hospitals should be governed by the shorter, malpractice period of limitation and, accordingly, hold that where a malpractice action is properly pleaded against a hospital the two-year limitation period of § 5805(4) applies.

Section 600.5805(4) establishes a two-year limitations period for actions alleging professional malpractice.

Strong v. Pontiac General Hospital · filed 1982-06-10(4)

We also hold that the trial court erred in granting accelerated judgment in favor of Dr. Bullard as to plaintiff Clarence Strong, Jr., based upon the malpractice statute of limitations. The period of limitations for an action alleging professional malpractice is two years. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4).

Section 600.5805(4) supplies the two-year limitations period for a wrongful-death action based on medical malpractice.

Hawkins v. Regional Medical Laboratories, PC · filed 1982-12-23(4)

The litigants are in agreement that the limitations period applicable is the two-year provision of MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4). ... We agree and expressly hold that in all actions brought under the wrongful death statute, the limitations period will be governed by the provision applicable to the liability theory of the underlying wrongful act.

Section 600.5805(4) imposes a two-year statute of limitations on malpractice actions.

Peltier v. Eldredge · filed 1983-09-07(4)

Claims for malpractice are governed by a two-year statute of limitations. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4).

For a properly pleaded malpractice action against a hospital, § 600.5805(4) imposes a two-year limitation period.

Adkins v. Annapolis Hospital · filed 1984-12-28(4)

We believe that the Legislature has clearly indicated that hospitals should be governed by the shorter, malpractice period of limitation and, accordingly, hold that where a. malpractice action is properly pleaded against a hospital the two-year limitation period of § 5805(4) applies.

Section 600.5805(4) imposes a two-year period of limitation for a medical malpractice action, measured from the last date of treatment.

Smith v. Sinai Hospital · filed 1986-06-17(4)

In a medical malpractice action, the basic period of limitation is two years from the last date of treatment. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4).

Section 600.5805 provides a two-year limitations period for the medical-malpractice claim at issue.

Blana v. Spezia · filed 1986-10-08

Thus, it is clear that plaintiffs failed to assert their claim within the two-year statutory period provided in MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805.

Section 600.5805(4) provides a two-year limitations period applicable to legal-malpractice actions.

SHAW INVESTMENT CO. v. Rollert · filed 1987-04-21(4)

The malpractice statute of limitations in effect on that date provided two years in which an action could be brought. MCL 500.5805(1) and (4); MSA 27A.5805(1) ánd (4). The statute is applicable to legal malpractice actions.

The two-year limitation period applies to claims that in substance allege medical malpractice, even when pleaded as fraud, misrepresentation, or ordinary negligence.

MacDonald v. Barbarotto · filed 1987-05-13(4), (8)

In determining the appropriate statute of limitation governing a case, we read the party’s claim as a whole and look beyond the procedural labels to determine the exact nature of the claim. ... Thus, since plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of fraud or misrepresentation, he cannot seek the protection of the three-year period of limitation applicable to such actions. Plaintiffs complaint is transparently based on malpractice, and the two-year malpractice period of limitation is accordingly applicable. Since plaintiff filed his action outside the two-year limit, we conclude that the trial court did not err in granting defendant’s motion on this basis. ... However, a complaint may not avoid application of the two-year malpractice period of limitation merely be couching its causes of action in terms of ordinary negligence.

Subsection (4) gives a malpractice action a two-year limitations period, subject to the accrual and discovery rules governing when that period runs.

Chapman v. Sullivan · filed 1987-05-15(4)

MCL 600.5805;. MSA 27A.5805 provides: ... (4) the period of limitations is two years for an action charging malpractice.

Section 5805(4) establishes a two-year limitations period for legal-malpractice actions, measured from when the claim accrues, subject to the related discovery tolling rule in § 5838.

Gambino v. Cardamone · filed 1987-05-21(4)

Reading the two sections in conjunction, it appears that the issue raised by plaintiffs is easily resolved. Under § 5805 the period of limitations is two years from the time that the claim accrues. Under § 5838, the claim accrues at the time of the last service rendered. Finally, under § 5838, the running of the statute is tolled for six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim.

Section 600.5805(4) sets a two-year limitation period for medical-malpractice claims from accrual, or six months from when the claim was discovered or should have been discovered.

Helmer v. Peoples Community Hospital Authority · filed 1987-07-20(4)

Here, the court properly exercised its discretion when deciding that the amendment was barred by the statute of limitations, which provides a period of limitation of two years from the date of accrual or six months from the date the claim was discovered or should have been discovered. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4); MCL 600.5838(2); MSA 27A.5838(2).

Section 600.5805 provides a two-year period of limitation for a legal malpractice claim, measured from the time the claim accrues.

K73 CORPORATION v. Stancati · filed 1988-09-28

Reading the two sections in conjunction reveals that under § 5805 the period of limitation is two years from the time the claim accrues.

Section 600.5805(4) establishes a two-year limitations period for an action charging malpractice.

Amrhein v. Philip Petachenko, DC, PC · filed 1988-10-05(4)

The limitations period for a medical malpractice action is governed by MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4), which provides that "the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging malpractice.”

Section 600.5805(4) imposes a two-year limitation period for medical malpractice actions.

Griffith v. Brant · filed 1989-03-02(4)

The period of limitation for a medical malpractice action is two years. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4).

Subsection (4) provides a two-year limitations period for malpractice actions, which the court applied to hold this action untimely.

Stapleton v. City of Wyandotte · filed 1989-06-05(4)

The period of limitation for a malpractice action is set forth in MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805: ... (4) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging malpractice. ... Applying this court rule to the facts in this case, we find that the two-year period of limitation lapsed on July 17, 1986, not July 18, 1986.

Subsection 5805(4) imposes a two-year limitation period on medical malpractice actions.

Hoffman v. Mount Clemens General Hospital, Inc. · filed 1990-03-09(4)

The period of limitation for a medical malpractice action is two years. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4).

Section 600.5805(4)'s two-year malpractice limitation may be applied directly to a malpractice claim submitted to arbitration, and its limitation period is tolled while a properly filed and served circuit-court action is pending.

Nielsen v. Barnett · filed 1992-06-16(4)

However, as a matter of contract interpretation, we hold that the arbitration panel did not exceed its authority by "directly” applying the two-year malpractice statute of limitations to the plaintiffs’ claim. ... Thus, when the plaintiffs filed an action in Kent Circuit Court on June 22, 1984, and served the defendants with a copy of the summons and complaint, the limitation period found in MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4) was tolled.

Section 600.5805(4) imposes a two-year limitation period on actions charging malpractice, including accountant malpractice claims arising from traditional common-law malpractice.

LOCAL 1064, RWDSU AFL-CIO v. Ernst & Young · filed 1995-07-25(4)

For the reasons stated in Nat’l Sand, Inc v Nagel Construction, Inc, 182 Mich App 327, 332-337; 451 NW2d 618 (1990), we conclude that § 5805 prescribes the limitation periods for traditional common-law torts, regardless of whether the damages sought are for pecuniary or physical injury. ... In light of the case law, we agree that § 5805 controls here. ... Consequently, we hold that the relevant statute of limitations is MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4).

Section 600.5805(4) gives a legal-malpractice claimant two years from accrual to commence an action.

Fante v. Stepek · filed 1996-12-09(4)

The general period of limitation for a legal malpractice cause of action is two years from the date the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4).

Subsection (4) sets a two-year limitation period for an action charging malpractice, running from accrual unless another applicable statutory period controls.

Poffenbarger v. Kaplan · filed 1997-09-11(4)

Pursuant to MCL 600.5838a(2); MSA 27A.5838(1)(2), plaintiff had three time frames in which to bring this action. First, she could have filed within the two-year general malpractice period of limitation stated in MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4), which in the present case would have expired on May 8 or 9, 1991.

Subsection (4) requires a medical-malpractice action to be filed within two years after the claim accrues.

McKiney v. Clayman · filed 1999-12-01(4)

This testimony does not allege any new, distinct negligent acts or omissions by defendant in the early months of 1994, but indicates that defendant merely adhered to his original misdiagnosis and treatment determination. Because defendant’s misdiagnosis or misdiagnoses and allegedly negligent treatment decisions occurred at some point no later than December 3, 1993, over two years before plaintiff’s filing of her malpractice claim on December 21, 1995, the trial court properly granted defendant summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4).

Subsection (5) requires a medical-malpractice claim to be brought within two years of the act or omission forming the basis of the claim, subject to the later discovery period.

Vandenberg v. Vandenberg · filed 2003-02-04(5)

Generally, a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must bring a claim within two years of the act or omission that forms the basis of the claim, or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or reasonably should have discovered that the plaintiff has a claim, whichever is later. M.C.L. §§ 600.5805(5), 600.5838a(2). ... In this case, the claim against defendants accrued on October 11, 1990, the last day of treatment and the day decedent died. Thus, pursuant to M.C.L. § 600.5805(5), the statute of limitations was set to expire two years later, on October 11, 1992.

Section 600.5805(5) sets a two-year limitations period for medical-malpractice actions, measured from accrual of the claim.

Lipman v. William Beaumont Hospital · filed 2003-07-01(5)

There is no dispute that the underlying claim in this case is one of malpractice, and, accordingly, the applicable statute of limitations is MCL 600.5805(5). Generally, a plaintiff in a medical-malpractice action must file suit within two years of the date that the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805(5); Omelenchuk, supra at 569.

Section 600.5805(5), now subsection (6), sets a two-year limitation period for medical-malpractice actions.

Waltz v. Wyse · filed 2004-04-14(5) (renumbered as (6))

In this case, the two-year limitation period provided in § 5805(5) expired on April 18, 1996, two years after Jerrith’s death. In order to toll the period under § 5856(d), plaintiff was required to provide notices of intent in compliance with the provisions of MCL 600.2912b before the expiration of the two-year limitation period.

Section 600.5805(6) ordinarily imposes a two-year limitations period on medical-malpractice actions.

Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Centre, Inc · filed 2004-07-30(6)

The period of limitations for a medical malpractice action is ordinarily two years. MCL 600.5805(6). According to MCL 600.5852, plaintiff had two years from the date she was issued letters of authority as personal representative of Hunt’s estate to file a medical malpractice complaint. Because the letters of authority were issued to plaintiff on January 20, 1998, the medical malpractice action had to be filed by January 20, 2000. Thus, under ordinary circumstances, plaintiffs February 7, 2001, medical malpractice complaint (her third complaint in total) would be time-barred.

Section 600.5805(6) gives a medical-malpractice plaintiff two years from accrual of the claim to file suit.

McLean v. McElhaney · filed 2006-03-02(6)

The period of limitations applicable to this action began to run on February 12, 2001, when the cause of action accrued. MCL 600.5805(6).

Section 600.5805(6) gives a medical-malpractice action a two-year period of limitations.

Wood v. Bediako · filed 2007-02-20(6)

The period of limitations for a medical malpractice action is two years. MCL 600.5805(6). ... In Scarsella, supra at 550 n. 1, 607 N.W.2d 711, our Supreme Court declined to overrule VandenBerg. Instead, it found VandenBerg factually and legally distinguishable because VandenBerg did not involve a statute of limitations issue. Hence, while the filing of a complaint without an affidavit of merit does not toll the period of limitations, and the subsequent filing of an affidavit after the limitations period has run does not relate back to the original filing, id. at 549-550, 607 N.W.2d 711, the subsequent filing of an affidavit before the limitations period has run will operate to toll the limitations period and commence the suit unless a defendant moves for dismissal or can demonstrate prejudice. Dorris, supra at 47, 594 N.W.2d 455; VandenBerg, supra at 502, 586 N.W.2d 570.

Section 600.5805(6) imposes a two-year limitations period for medical-malpractice actions.

Miller v. Malik · filed 2008-09-18(6)

The period of limitations in a malpractice action is two years. MCL 600.5805(6). ... In the present matter, Miller passed away on September 19, 2003. Accordingly, the two-year period of limitations would expire on September 19, 2005. See MCL 600.5805(6).

Subsection (6) imposes a two-year limitations period for medical-malpractice actions; once that period has expired before suit is filed, filing a complaint with an affidavit of merit cannot toll it.

Ligons v. Crittenton Hospital · filed 2011-07-29(6)

Plaintiffs case was dismissed with prejudice because the two-year statutory limitations period provided in MCL 600.5805(6) for his medical malpractice action expired before his AOMs were deemed defective; therefore, no tolling was available to him upon his filing the complaint under MCL 600.5856(a).

Subsection (6) generally gives a medical-malpractice plaintiff two years to bring an action.

Rayba v. Md · filed 2015-01-22(6)

“The period of limitations for a medical malpractice action is ordinarily two years, MCL 600.5805(6), from ‘the time of the act or omission that is the basis for the claim of medical malpractice, regardless of the time the plaintiff discovers or otherwise has knowledge of the claim,’ MCL 600.5838a(1).”

Section 600.5805(6) gives medical malpractice claims a two-year statute of limitations.

Timothy a Carl v. Muskegon County · filed 2015-02-26(6)

Furthermore, plaintiff’s claim was subject to a two-year statute of limitations. MCL 600.5805(6). Plaintiff’s medical malpractice claim accrued and the limitations period began to run on the date of the alleged malpractice. MCL 600.5838a(1). Count 2 of plaintiff’s complaint was based on Jawor’s medical evaluation on March 5, 2008. Therefore, the statute of limitations on plaintiff’s malpractice claim expired on March 5, 2010.

Section 600.5805(6) imposes a two-year statute of limitations on legal malpractice actions.

Jones v. Manville · filed 2016-03-22(6)

Third, and finally, Jones’s legal malpractice action was not filed within the two-year statute of limitations. MCL 600.5805(6); MCL 600.5838b(1)(a).

Section 600.5805(6) requires medical malpractice claims to be filed within two years.

Estate of Eric Gerrity v. Women's & Children's Health Services · filed 2016-11-08(6)

As a general rule, medical malpractice claims must be brought within two years. MCL 600.5805(6).

Section 600.5805(6) gives a legal-malpractice action a two-year limitations period measured from when the claim accrues.

Kovacs v. Robbins · filed 2017-06-20(6)

MCL 600.5805(6) states that the statute of limitation for “an action charging malpractice” is two years after the claim first accrued. ... Therefore, the two-year limitations period provided in MCL 600.5805(6) began to run on April 1, 2010, and ended on April 1, 2012.

Section 600.5805(6) provides a two-year limitations period for medical-malpractice actions, and a timely notice of intent filed on the final day preserves that day for filing after the notice period ends.

Haksluoto v. Mt Clemens Regional Medical Center · filed 2017-06-27(6)

The limitations period for a medical malpractice action is two years. MCL 600.5805(6). ... We hold, therefore, that applying our common-law jurisprudence of fractional days produces a conclusion that a timely NOI preserves the day the NOI is filed as a day to be used once the limitations period begins running after the notice period ends.

Section 600.5805(6) bars a medical-malpractice action filed more than two years after the alleged acts.

Sabbagh v. Hamilton Psychological Services Plc · filed 2019-08-06(6)

And, because it is clear that plaintiffs’ claims were brought more than two years after the acts alleged, a point which plaintiffs have never disputed, and thus were outside the two-year medical malpractice statute of limitations, see Haksluoto v Mt Clemens Regional Med Ctr, 500 Mich 304, 310; 901 NW2d 577 (2017), citing MCL 600.5805(6), the trial court ought to have granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) on this basis.

Section 600.5805(8) establishes a two-year limitations period for medical malpractice actions.

Estate of Sandra D Marquardt v. Vellaiah Durai Umashankar Md · filed 2019-11-26(8)

The general limitations period for medical malpractice actions is two years. MCL 600.5805(8). Accordingly, and as the parties agree, the period of limitations for this action was set to expire on July 20, 2009, unless the limitations period was tolled.

Section 600.5805(8) imposes a two-year limitations period on actions charging malpractice.

Thompkins v. Zamler · filed 2020-03-19(8)

The governing statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims states that “the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging malpractice.” MCL 600.5805(8). ... Thus, plaintiff failed to properly file her legal malpractice claim within two years of the date that Zamler last represented her in accordance with MCL 600.5805(8).

Section 600.5805(8) requires a legal-malpractice action to be filed within two years after the claim accrues.

Jones v. Kreis Enderle Hudgins & Borsos Pc · filed 2020-12-22(8)

A legal malpractice action must be filed within two years of the date that the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805(8); Wright v Rinaldo, 279 Mich App 526, 528; 761 NW2d 114 (2008).

Section 600.5805(8) imposes a two-year limitations period on actions charging malpractice, including veterinary professional-malpractice claims.

Sovereign O'Dell v. Dvm · filed 2022-05-19(8)

For an action charging malpractice, the period of limitations is two years. MCL 600.5805(8). Thus, regardless of whether plaintiff raised a claim alleging medical malpractice or general professional malpractice, the period of limitations is the same, two years. See Haksluoto v Mt Clemens Regional Med Ctr, 500 Mich 304, 310; 901 NW2d 577 (2017) (“The limitations period for a medical malpractice action is two years.”)

Section 600.5805(8) sets a two-year limitations period for medical-malpractice actions.

Roche v. Jeffrey D Mendelson Md · filed 2022-07-28(8)

The general limitation period for a malpractice action is two years. MCL 600.5805(8).

Section 600.5805(8) requires a legal-malpractice action to be commenced within two years after the claim accrues.

Kremer v. Dailey · filed 2022-10-20(8)

Because defendants stopped representing Kremer no later than May 26, 2017, MCL 600.5805(8) required commencement of Kremer’s malpractice action within two years of that date.

Section 600.5805(8) sets a two-year limitations period for medical-malpractice actions, subject to statutory tolling.

Armijo v. Bronson Methodist Hospital · filed 2023-01-19(8)

Under MCL 600.5856(c), because plaintiff served notice of her intent to file her medical malpractice action, the two-year statutory limitations period specified under MCL 600.5805(8) which would have elapsed during the notice period was tolled, such that she had 16 days remaining of the statutory limitations period in which to commence her malpractice action. That gave plaintiff until September 4, 2020, to commence her malpractice action against defendants. The record indicates that plaintiff filed her lawsuit on December 14, 2020, long after the expiration of the statutory limitations period. Accordingly, her claims against defendants were time-barred.

Section 600.5805(8) imposes a two-year limitations period for medical-malpractice actions, measured from accrual of the claim.

Hubbard v. Np · filed 2023-03-02(8)

The limitations period for filing an action alleging a claim for medical malpractice is two years from the date of the accrual of the claim. MCL 600.5805(8); Haksluoto v Mt. Clemens Regional Med Ctr, 500 Mich 304, 310; 901 NW2d 577 (2017). ... The actual “deadline” for filing suit in a medical malpractice action is the expiration of the 2-year statute of limitations.

Section 600.5805(6) imposes a two-year statute of limitations on medical-malpractice claims.

McLeod v. Southeastern Mich Colon & Rectal Surgery Pllc · filed 2023-11-21(6)

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ second complaint is barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to medical malpractice claims, MCL 600.5805(6).

Section 600.5805(8) gives medical-malpractice claims a two-year limitations period measured from accrual.

Estate of Maurice Ernest v. Paul W Brown Jr Md · filed 2025-03-20(8)

Generally, medical malpractice actions are subject to a two-year statute of limitations from the time the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805(8). ... In this case, plaintiff’s claim accrued when decedent allegedly received negligent medical care on July 16, 2020. Had plaintiff provided its notice of intent within two years of this date, the limitations period for bringing the claim under MCL 600.5805(8) would have been tolled, but plaintiff did not do so. Thus, when considered solely in the context of the original statute of limitations, plaintiff’s claim expired on July 16, 2022, and its August 14, 2023 complaint was untimely.

Section 600.5805(8) imposes a two-year limitations period for a medical-malpractice claim, measured from the date the claim accrued.

Baase v. East Michigan Physicians Organization Plc · filed 2025-12-18(8)

The statutory limitations period for filing a medical-malpractice claim is two years from the date the claim accrued. MCL 600.5805(8); Haksluoto v Mt Clemens Regional Med Ctr, 500 Mich 304, 310; 901 NW2d 577 (2017). ... Accordingly, because the record shows no genuine factual dispute that Baase had knowledge of her claim against Dr. Stewart on March 31, 2022, the trial court properly granted Dr. Stewart’s renewed motion for summary disposition on the basis that Baase’s claim was untimely filed.

Section 600.5805(8) sets a two-year limitations period for medical malpractice actions.

Estate of Shabaka Greenwood v. Detroit Receiving Hospital · filed 2026-06-15(8)

Under MCL 600.5805(8), the statute of limitations for a medical malpractice action is two years.

Section 600.5805(8) imposes a two-year limitations period on an action charging malpractice, measured from accrual unless another statutory provision applies.

Howard v. Smoler · filed 2026-06-17(8)

The parties do not dispute that in a case alleging medical malpractice,1 the applicable period of limitations is two years from the time the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805(8) (“Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging malpractice”). ... In this case, according to plaintiff’s complaint the alleged medical malpractice occurred March 28, 2022, the day of the dental implant surgery. Therefore, absent any tolling, the limitations period was set to expire two years later on March 28, 2024.

Section 600.5805(8) sets a two-year limitations period for an action charging malpractice, subject to other provisions of the chapter.

Pbm Partners LLC v. Dickinson Wright Pllc · filed 2026-06-18(8)

Section 5805 is the general limitation provision, delineating periods for different types of actions. It states that a plaintiff must bring a malpractice action within two years of when the claim first accrues, or it will be time-barred.

Section 600.5805(10) applies a three-year limitations period measured separately from each discharge, so pre-limitations-period discharges are barred while later discharges remain timely.

Cole v. Marathon Oil Corp. · filed 2017-10-26(10)

Michigan’s statute of limitations for private nuisance and negligence claims requires filing within three years “after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff.” Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.5805(1), (10). ... Under Michigan’s statute-of-limitations law, “each alleged violation . . . [is] a separate claim with a separate time of accrual.” ... Any claims for alleged discharges occurring prior to February 22, 2013, which was three years prior to Plaintiffs’ complaint, are time-barred. ... Any claims for alleged discharges occurring after February 22, 2013, are timely.

Section 600.5805(7) requires a simple personal-injury negligence action to be brought within three years, measured from the date of injury rather than from the later discovery of the alleged negligent design.

Sedlak v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1975-08-28(7)

The complaint is of a simple tort action based on negligence. That cause of action, if any, accrued on the date of his injury, November 21, 1969. Absent certain exceptions as to disabilities, not here relevant, plaintiff had 3 years to find out or obtain adequate assistance in investigating the claimed relationship between the injury and the alleged negligent design.

Section 600.5805(7) imposes a three-year limitation period on tort claims arising from personal injuries, subject to equitable estoppel when the defendant's conduct induced the plaintiff to delay filing.

Huhtala v. Travelers Insurance · filed 1975-11-13(7)

Thus, unless the defendants are estopped from asserting it, the three-year provision of MCLA 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7) would bar the plaintiffs’ cause of action.

For a personal-injury action requiring serious impairment of body function, subsection (8)'s three-year limitations period does not begin until that impairment has occurred and can be alleged.

Mielke v. Waterman · filed 1985-08-19(8)

The serious impairment of body function is an essential element of the plaintiffs cause of action, not merely a later additional item of damages. In an action like that presented here, an additional element must be added to the four essential elements specified in Connelly for an action for damages arising out of tortious injury to a person: (5) The plaintiff must have suffered a serious impairment of body function. A cause of action for damages for noneconomic losses from a serious impairment of body function cannot have accrued before the alleged serious impairment occurred.

Section 600.5805 imposes a three-year limitations period that begins when the personal-injury claim accrues; later discovery of additional or more serious damages does not toll or restart that period.

Hohendorf v. Meagher · filed 1991-04-02

We find the reasoning of Sherrell and Gagliardi persuasive. Accordingly, we conclude that plaintiffs’ cause of action accrued in 1982 and the statute of limitations was not tolled until discovery of Hohendorf s herniated disc in 1988 or 1989. The trial court therefore properly ruled that plaintiffs’ 1989 lawsuit was barred by the three-year statute of limitations set forth in MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805.

The three-year limitation for injury to person or property applies to a breach-of-warranty action seeking recovery for personal injury, rather than the two-year malpractice limitation.

Kelleher v. Mills · filed 1976-08-03(3), (7)

Count one alleges breach of warranty, not malpractice so the two year statute of limitations for malpractice does not apply. Since count one seeks recovery for personal injury the three year statute of limitations, MCLA 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7), applies.

Section 600.5805 provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury claims such as products-liability personal injury claims.

Turner v. Ford Motor Co. · filed 1978-02-23

Since this case involves product liability claims against a manufacturer for personal injury, Velma Turner’s claims accrued in Georgia on February 12, 1972. ... Under Michigan law, the limitations period applicable to personal injury claims like these is three years.1 MCLA 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805.

Section 600.5805(7) provides the general three-year limitations period for actions to recover for personal injuries, which the court treated as applicable to a breach-of-warranty right of action characterized as a tort claim.

Waldron v. Armstrong Rubber Co. · filed 1975-10-13(7)

Under Michigan law a right of action for breach of warranty is treated as a tort claim and, therefore, the Michigan courts would presumably apply the general 3-year statute of limitations for an action instituted to recover for personal injuries.

Section 600.5805(6) provides the one-year limitations period for defamation-based injury to reputation, while § 600.5805(7) provides a three-year period for an action for intentional infliction of mental distress.

Campos v. General Motors Corp. · filed 1976-08-24(6), (7)

Only those allegations which charge an intentional interference with plaintiff’s own mental well being, as distinguished from other’s reactions to the charges, are not barred by the 1-year statute of limitations of MCLA 600.5805(6); MSA 27A.5805(6). That portion of the complaint which relies upon the reactions of others and damage to his reputation sounds in defamation and is barred by the statute of limitations.

Section 600.5805(1) gives false-imprisonment actions a two-year limitations period, while subsection (7) gives intentional-infliction-of-mental-distress actions a three-year period.

Mosley v. Federal Department Stores, Inc. · filed 1978-08-22(1), (7)

At the outset we note that the statute of limitations is two years for false imprisonment actions, MCL 600.5805(1); MSA 27A.5805(1); actions for intentional infliction of mental distress fall within the language of MCL 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7), and must be brought within three years from the accrual of the action. ... One word of caution is appropriate. Any allegation in the complaint that sounds in false imprisonment is barred by the statute of limitations under MCL 600.5805(1); MSA 27A.5805(1); plaintiff will thus be limited at trial to her proofs on her action for intentional infliction of mental distress.

Section 600.5805(8) provides a three-year limitations period for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress.

Killian v. Fuller · filed 1987-08-04(8)

The period of limitations applicable to a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress is three years, as provided by MCL 600.5805(8); MSA 27A.5805(8).

Section 600.5805(5) gives state-law malicious-prosecution claims a two-year limitations period, while § 600.5805(10) gives abuse-of-process and intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claims a three-year period as personal-injury actions.

Rudd v. Norton Shores, City of · filed 2021-04-22(5), (10)

Rudd’s claim for malicious prosecution under state law (Count 4) is subject to the two-year limitations period in Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(5) (2013). Rudd’s claims of abuse of process (Count 5) and infliction of emotional distress (Count 6) are subject to the three-year limitations period in Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10) (2013) for personal injury actions. See Lechner v. Peppler, No. 337872, 2018 WL 2121483, at *3 (Mich. Ct. App. May 8, 2018).

Subsection (7) provides the general statute of limitations applicable to an action sounding in tort.

Miller v. Magline, Inc. · filed 1977-06-20(7)

Plaintiffs’ action is premised upon a breach of fiduciary duty, which sounds in tort, and therefore their action was timely filed under the general statute of limitations contained in MCLA 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7).

Section 5805(3), as it then read, imposed a two-year limitations period on malpractice actions, and the version in effect when the malpractice claim accrued controlled.

Zatolokin v. Grimm · filed 1980-08-11(3)

Prior to the 1975 amendment, the formerly constituted MCL 600.5838; MSA 27A.5838, which statute must be read together with MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805, provided: ... "(3) The period of limitations is 2 years for actions charging malpractice.” ... Applying these premises to this case, we find that if plaintiffs’ cause of action against the Sieradzki interests was barred by running of the statute of limitations on or after July 9, 1975, then plaintiffs’ malpractice claim against appellants is barred by the amended statute of limitations that became effective July 9, 1975. If, however, plaintiffs’ cause of action against the Sieradzki interests was barred by running of the statute of limitations before July 9, 1975, then plaintiffs’ malpractice claim against appellants is not barred, because the statute of limitations as it was constituted before the July 9, 1975, amendment controls.

Subsection 600.5805(7), now subsection (8), supplies the limitations period for a negligence or personal-injury claim against a hospital when the complaint does not plead an agency relationship making the medical-malpractice period applicable.

Johnson v. CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF MICH. · filed 1981-04-21(7) (now (8))

Our thorough review of plaintiffs complaint indicates only that plaintiff averred that the defendant hospital and the defendant doctors jointly and/or severally breached the applicable standard of care and jointly and/or severally were liable for plaintiffs injuries. Nowhere does the complaint indicate expressly that those who committed the acts of negligence were agents or employees of defendant, or otherwise allege the existence of an agency relationship. ... Accordingly, we are constrained to agree with defendant’s position as to the relevant statute of limitations and the conclusion which flows therefrom, viz., that plaintiffs claim was barred as being without the statute of limitations applicable to negligence actions, that statute being the one which controls as against defendant Children’s Hospital. Of necessity, we affirm the decision of the trial court granting accelerated judgment to defendant.

Section 600.5805(4) imposes a two-year limitations period on actions charging malpractice, including legal-malpractice actions.

Goodwin v. Schulte · filed 1982-04-21(4)

MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4) provides that the limitation period for an action charging malpractice is two years. This statute is applicable to actions alleging legal malpractice.

Section 600.5805(7) imposes a one-year limitations period on libel actions.

Meyer v. Hubbell · filed 1982-07-12(7)

Since plaintiffs complaint was properly interpreted to allege libel, the trial judge was correct in applying the one-year statute of limitations period to bar the action. MCL 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7). Plaintiff did not file his complaint until September 11, 1980, whereas the publication of the purported libelous statements occurred in January of 1978. Since the plaintiff brought suit well after the period of limitation had run, it was not error for the trial judge to grant accelerated judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 116.1(5).

Section 600.5805(4) sets a two-year limitations period for malpractice actions, subject to other applicable statutory provisions.

Stroud v. Ward · filed 1988-06-06(4)

Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging malpractice. ... In this case, there is no dispute that defendant discontinued serving plaintiff in September, 1978, since that is when plaintiff retained attorney Cannon. Therefore, plaintiff had until September, 1980, to file his malpractice claim. Having failed to do so, plaintiff’s claim is barred under this particular section of the statute.

Section 600.5805(4) requires a legal malpractice action to be filed within two years after the attorney's last service, subject to the alternative six-month discovery period.

Pantely v. Garris, Garris & Garris, PC · filed 1989-11-06(4)

An action for legal malpractice must be brought within two years of the date of the last service performed by the attorney or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim.

Section 600.5805(1) and (4) supplies a two-year limitations period for malpractice claims, measured from accrual and subject to the chapter’s exceptions.

Hayden v. Green · filed 1988-02-16(1) and (4)

(4) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, the period of limitations is 2 years for an action charging malpractice. ... The statute requires a plaintiff to bring his claim within two years of when it first accrued or within six months of the discovery of actionable *356malpractice. ... Given cgg & a’s posture, plaintiff’s claim was filed in a timely manner.

Section 600.5805(8) sets a three-year limitations period for negligence actions.

McCann v. BRODY-BUILT CONSTR. CO. INC. · filed 1992-12-21(8)

The statute of limitations for negligence actions is three years. MCL 600.5805(8); MSA 27A.5805(8).

Section 600.5805(10) imposes a three-year limitations period on tortious-interference claims.

Blazer Foods, Inc v. Restaurant Properties, Inc · filed 2004-01-08(10)

Plaintiffs’ claims against Taco Bell and PepsiCo of tortious interference with a contract and tortious interference with a prospective economic advantage were governed by a three-year period of limitations. See MCL 600.5805(10), and James v Logee, 150 Mich App 35, 37-38; 388 NW2d 294 (1986).

Section 600.5805(10) supplies a three-year limitations period for an aiding-and-abetting breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim when the claim does not involve a breach of the defendant’s own duty to the plaintiff.

Gold v. Deloitte & Touche LLP (In Re NM Holdings Co.) · filed 2009-06-15(10)

Accordingly, as Gold’s aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty claim does not involve a breach of Deloitte’s duty to Venture, it is not governed by the statute of limitations applicable to malpractice actions. Therefore, Gold’s claim that Venture aided and abetted Winget’s breach of his fiduciary duty is barred by the three-year limitations period in § 600.5805(10).

Section 600.5805(10) imposes a three-year statute of limitations on intentional-interference claims, and subsection (8) imposes a three-year statute of limitations on civil-conspiracy claims.

Grain v. Trinity Health · filed 2011-07-08(10), (8)

Under Michigan law, there is a three-year statute of limitations on actions for intentional interference with contractual relations. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(10). ... Like Plaintiffs’ other state-law tort claims, their civil conspiracy claim is subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(8); Mays v. Three Rivers Rubber Corp., 352 N.W.2d 339, 340–41 (Mich. App. 1984).

Subsection 600.5805(2) establishes a three-year limitations period for civil-rights suits filed in Michigan.

Evans 367619 v. Horton · filed 2020-11-13(2)

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under these provisions, the statute of limitations is three years.

Subsection (10) sets a three-year limitations period for civil-rights actions brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in Michigan.

MacLachlan 844474 v. Burt · filed 2022-01-07(10)

For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under § 1983, the statute of limitations is three years.

Section 600.5805(2) sets a three-year statute of limitations for § 1983 civil-rights suits filed in Michigan.

Throneberry v. Butler · filed 2022-03-17(2)

In this case, Plaintiff brings causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For civil rights suits filed in Michigan under Section 1983, the statute of limitations is three years. See Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2); Carroll v. Wilkerson, 782 F.2d 44 (6th Cir. 1986) (per curiam); Stafford v. Vaughn, No. 97-2239, 1999 WL 96990, at *1 (6th Cir. Feb. 2, 1999).

Subsection (2) provides a three-year limitations period for the tort claim at issue.

Berry v. Mullet · filed 2025-07-01(2)

It appears that the Michigan statute of limitations that applies to torts is MCL 600.5805(2), which provides for a three-year statute of limitations. Even if we give retroactive effect to R.C. 2305.03(B), the 2018 amended complaint was timely commenced under Michigan law. We conclude that for purposes of R.C. 2305.03(B) only, the Berrys' claim of bad faith was timely commenced.

Section 600.5805(8)’s three-year tort limitations period does not apply to an employee’s claim against an employer solely for breach of a collective-bargaining agreement.

Romero v. Paragon Steel Division, Portec, Inc · filed 1982-05-19(8)

The sole issue on appeal is whether the trial court erred by relying on the tort limitations period. ... Inasmuch as plaintiff’s claim is based upon an alleged breach of a collective-bargaining agreement it is subject to the six-year statute of limitations pertinent to breach of contract actions, MCL 600.5807(8); MSA 27A.5807(8).

Section 600.5805(3) imposes a two-year statute of limitations on both medical and legal malpractice actions.

Sam v. Balardo · filed 1978-08-07(3)

We cannot agree with this conclusion for a number of reasons. First, we find it relevant (although Judge Levin would disagree) that the term "malpractice of physicians, surgeons or dentists” in 1915 CL 12323(3), was altered in MCL 600.5805(3); MSA 27A.5805(3), to read merely "malpractice”.

Section 600.5805(3) sets a two-year limitations period for attorney-malpractice actions, and in this context the period begins when the plaintiff is discharged in bankruptcy.

Biberstine v. Woodworth · filed 1979-05-01(3)

We hold that the statute of limitations starts to run at the time the plaintiff was discharged in bankruptcy. Until then, the defendant could have petitioned the bankruptcy court to amend the petition, and the plaintiff would not have had a claim for malpractice.

Section 600.5805 sets a two-year limitation period for legal-malpractice claims and a three-year limitation period for negligence claims under subsection (7) (now subsection (8)).

Cramer v. Metropolitan Savings Ass'n · filed 1983-05-17(7)

The period of limitation for legal malpractice is two years. MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805; Sam v Balardo, 411 Mich 405; 308 NW2d 142 (1981). Similarly, the period of limitation for negligence is three years under MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805, subparagraph (7) when plaintiff’s complaint was filed, now subparagraph (8).

Section 600.5805(4) applies to a claim grounded solely in legal malpractice, rather than one based on contract or general negligence.

Barnard v. Dilley · filed 1984-05-01(4)

Plaintiff claims that the trial judge improperly applied the statute of limitations for legal malpractice, MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4), to her claims rather than statutes governing complaints alleging breach of contract or general negligence. ... Her claim is that damages flowed not from his failure to represent her, but from his failure to represent her adequately. This is a claim grounded on malpractice and malpractice only.

Section 600.5805 sets a two-year limitation period for legal-malpractice claims and a three-year limitation period for negligence claims under subsection (7) (now subsection (8)).

Cramer v. Metropolitan Savings Ass'n · filed 1984-08-06(7)

The period of limitation for legal malpractice is two years. MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805; Sam v Balardo, 411 Mich 405; 308 NW2d 142 (1981). Similarly, the period of limitation for negligence is three years under MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805, subparagraph (7) when plaintiff’s complaint was filed, now subparagraph (8).

Section 600.5805(4) applies the malpractice limitation period to an action alleging that a licensed pharmacist mistakenly dispensed the wrong drug and thereby harmed the plaintiff.

Becker v. Meyer Rexall Drug Co. · filed 1985-03-18(4)

The limitation period of MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4) applies to an action where it is alleged that a licensed pharmacist mistakenly dispenses the wrong drug, thus harming the plaintiff.

Subsection (4) provides the limitations period applied to legal-malpractice claims; a complaint filed outside that period is barred.

Aldred v. O'Hara-Bruce · filed 1990-07-03(4)

Since plaintiffs’ complaint represents an action for malpractice, plaintiffs’ complaint is barred by the statute of limitations. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4); MCL 600.5838; MSA 27A.5838; ... On this basis, the trial court should have granted defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

Section 600.5805(4) supplies the two-year limitations period for legal-malpractice claims; together with § 600.5838(2), it bars a claim not filed within six months after discovery when no fraudulent concealment applies.

Brownell v. Garber · filed 1993-05-03(4)

Generally, a legal malpractice action must be brought within two years of the date the attorney discontinues serving the plaintiff or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the claim, whichever is later. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4); MSA 600.5838(2); MSA 27A.5838(2); Seebacher v Fitzgerald, Hodgman, Cawthorne & King, PC, 181 Mich App 642, 646; 449 NW2d 673 (1989). ... If, however, the proofs demonstrate that defendant did in fact research the question and consult with the accounting firm, but negligently rendered inaccurate advice, no fraudulent concealment within the meaning of MCL 600.5855; MSA 27A.5855 exists, and the claim is barred by MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4) and MCL 600.5838(2); MSA 27A.5838(2) because plaintiff did not file his complaint within six months of discovery of the alleged malpractice.

For a legal-malpractice claim arising from a criminal conviction, the statute of limitations is triggered when the criminal defendant obtains postconviction relief, provided appellate remedies were pursued.

Gebhardt v. O'ROURKE · filed 1992-08-13(4)

An action for legal malpractice must be brought within two years of the date the attorney discontinued serving the plaintiff or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later. MCL 600.5805(4), 600.5838; MSA 27A.5805(4), 27A.5838. ... By adopting the date that post-conviction relief is obtained as the trigger to the statute of limitations, we establish a bright line test which should significantly assist courts in the resolution of statute of limitations issues.

Section 600.5805(4)'s two-year malpractice limitation applies only where malpractice against the profession was recognized as a common-law cause of action when the statute was enacted, so it does not apply to claims against accountants.

LOCAL 1064, RWDSU AFL-CIO v. Ernst & Young · filed 1994-04-04(4)

In a nutshell, the holding is that application of § 5805 is not limited to situations involving only physical injuries or physical damage to property. ... We have not found any cases before 1961, when the rja was enacted, in which a common-law cause of action for malpractice against accountants was recognized. Accordingly, we find that § 5805(4) does not apply in the present case.

The two-year malpractice limitation in § 600.5805(4) does not govern a complaint that pleads fraud; the fraud limitation period applies instead.

Kuebler v. Equitable Life Assurance Society · filed 1996-11-22(4)

Generally, two years is the limit for malpractice actions. MCL 600.5805(4); MSA 27A.5805(4). ... When a complaint alleges all the necessary elements of fraud as well as malpractice, the statute of limitations governing fraud actions will apply to the fraud count. ... Therefore, a six-year statute of limitations applied to plaintiffs’ fraud count, and the trial court’s dismissal under MCR 2.116(C)(7) was error. Given that the statute of limitations for fraud controls, there is no need to address whether an insurance agent is a “professional” within the meaning of the statute.

Section 600.5805(4) bars a legal-malpractice claim when the limitation period has expired, and follow-up efforts to remedy a completed representation do not extend the period of service when they are not part of a continuing or renewed attorney-client relationship.

Bauer v. Ferriby & Houston, PC · filed 1999-08-30(4)

Under these uncontroverted facts, we regard the activities of defendant in 1996 as a response to a complaint about an earlier, terminated representation, not as legal service in furtherance of a continuing or renewed attorney-client relationship. Thus the trial court properly held that plaintiff’s claim was time-barred.

Section 600.5805(5) gives a plaintiff two years from accrual to file a legal-malpractice claim.

Balcom v. Zambon · filed 2003-03-07(5)

A plaintiff has two years from the date of accrual of a claim to file a claim of malpractice.

Section 600.5805(6) imposes a two-year limitations period on a legal-malpractice claim.

Price, Heneveld, Cooper, Dewitt & Litton v. Annuity Investors Life Insurance · filed 2007-08-02(6)

As Annuity Investors has failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to equitable estoppel, we conclude that the district court did not err in granting partial summary judgment limiting Annuity Investors’ legal malpractice counterclaim to the amount established as Price Heneveld’s claim, pursuant to Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.5805(6) and 600.5823.

Section 600.5805(6) imposes a two-year limitations period on an action charging legal malpractice, including a claim against an attorney for negligent professional services.

Allstate Insurance v. Harris (In re Harris) · filed 2012-04-19(6)

It is therefore a “claim for malpractice” within the meaning of that statute, as well as a “claim based on malpractice” within the meaning of Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5838(2), and “an action charging malpractice” within the meaning of Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(6), quoted above.

Section 600.5805(6) applies only to professions that were subject to malpractice liability under the common law in 1915, when the statute was first enacted.

Land Escape Outdoor Maintenance LLC v. Insurance Advisors Inc · filed 2015-08-13(6)

Rather, the statute of limitations found in MCL 600.5805(6) applies only to those professions that were subject to malpractice liability under the common law in 1915, when the statute was first enacted. This included physicians, attorneys, surgeons, and dentists. Id. at 232.

Section 600.5805(6) sets a two-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice claims.

Nagle v. Hertz Schram Pc · filed 2015-09-17(6)

The statute of limitations applicable to legal malpractice claims is two years. MCL 600.5805(6).

The court treated § 600.5805(1) and (6), together with § 600.5838(2), as requiring a legal-malpractice action within two years of accrual or six months after discovery, whichever is later, and affirmed dismissal as untimely.

Rhodes v. John F Schaefer Pllc · filed 2015-11-12(1) and (6)

A plaintiff must bring a legal malpractice claim within two years of when the malpractice claim first accrued, or within six months after the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later. See MCL 600.5805(1) and (6); MCL 600.5838(2); Kloian, 272 Mich App at 237.

Section 600.5805 gives legal-malpractice claims a two-year period from discontinuation of service or a six-month discovery period, whichever is later.

Tautkus v. Saunders · filed 2015-11-19

The applicable limitations period for claims of legal malpractice is “within two years from the date the attorney discontinues serving the client or within six months after the client discovers or should have discovered the claim, whichever is later.” Hooper, 191 Mich App at 314; MCL 600.5805. Here, plaintiffs claim that neither limitations period bars their claim. We address each in turn.

Section 600.5805(1) requires an action to be filed within the statutory period after the claim first accrues, and subsection (6) generally gives legal-malpractice claims two years from accrual.

Beckett Family Rentals LLC v. David & Wieringa Pc · filed 2014-12-09(1) (6)

A person cannot sue another “to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff” the action is commenced within the period of time prescribed by statute. MCL 600.5805(1). The statute of limitations period applicable to a legal malpractice claim is generally two years from the date of the accrual of the claim. MCL 600.5805(6).

Section 600.5805(6) imposes a two-year limitations period on legal-malpractice claims measured from accrual.

Carrie a Braspenick v. Johnson Law Plc · filed 2018-04-19(6)

In order to be timely, a claim for legal malpractice must be brought within two years after the claim accrues or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the claim, whichever is later. MCL 600.5805(6); MCL 600.5838(2); see also Kloian v Schwartz, 272 Mich App 232, 237; 725 NW2d 671 (2006).

Section 600.5805(4) gives legal-malpractice claims a two-year limitations period measured from accrual.

Bernaiche v. Morgan · filed 2019-01-15(4)

The general limitations period for a legal malpractice claim is two years from the date the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805(4).

Section 600.5805(8) requires a legal-malpractice action to be filed within two years after the claim accrues, subject to the applicable later or tolling provisions discussed by the court.

MacKenzie v. White · filed 2020-01-02(8)

In accordance with the governing statute of limitations, a plaintiff must bring a legal malpractice action within the later of (1) two years of the time a claim first accrues, MCL 600.5805(8), or (2) six months after the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the existence of the claim, MCL 600.5838(2).

Subsection (6) requires a legal-malpractice action to be filed within two years after accrual or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the claim, whichever is later.

Voutsaras v. Bossenbrook · filed 2020-02-25(6)

A legal malpractice claim must be brought within two years of the date the claim accrues, or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later. MCL 600.5805(6); MCL 600.5838(2).

Section 600.5805(8) imposes a two-year limitations period on professional-malpractice actions, including accounting-malpractice actions.

Genesee Intermediate School Dist v. City of Flint School Dist · filed 2020-08-20(8)

Under MCL 600.5805(8), a two-year statute of limitations applies to professional malpractice actions, including accounting malpractice actions. ... Because each year constituted a new and separate engagement under the terms specified in Yeo and Flint’s annual engagement agreements, any claims for accounting malpractice accrued upon the end of each annual engagement. Accordingly, the two-year limitations period commenced upon the accrual of Genesee’s claim when the professional relationship between Yeo and Flint ended upon Yeo’s delivery of Flint’s annual audited financial statements for each applicable year. Any accounting malpractice claim related to Yeo’s services performed under the engagement agreements related to the audited financial statement and report Yeo delivered in 2010 and 2011 accrued upon delivery and the two-year limitations period elapsed in 2012 and 2013 respectively. Because Genesee filed this action on July 8, 2014, claims related to the audited financial statement and report Yeo delivered in 2010 and 2011 were time-barred because the two-year statute of limitations period had elapsed.

Section 600.5805(6) gives legal-malpractice plaintiffs two years from accrual to sue, subject to the later six-month discovery period described with § 600.5838.

Marks v. Schafer and Weiner, PLLC · filed 2021-03-19(6)

Under Michigan law, “[a] legal malpractice claim must be brought within two years of the date the claim accrues, or within six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the existence of the claim, whichever is later.” Kloian v. Schwartz, 725 N.W.2d 671, 675 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006) (citing Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.5805(6), 600.5838).

Section 600.5805(8) generally gives a plaintiff two years from accrual to file a legal-malpractice action.

Hamilton Avenue Property Holdings LLC v. Resnick Law Pc · filed 2023-07-20(8)

At issue is whether plaintiffs timely filed this action within the applicable two-year limitations period for legal malpractice actions. ... A party, generally, has two years to file a legal malpractice case from the time the action accrues.4 MCL 600.5805(8); Kloian v Schwartz, 272 Mich App 232, 237; 725 NW2d 671 (2006).

For legal-malpractice claims, § 600.5805(8) requires filing within two years after the claim accrues.

Doraid Elder v. Lites · filed 2026-02-19(8)

A legal-malpractice action must be filed within two years of the date that the claim accrues. MCL 600.5805(8); Wright v Rinaldo, 279 Mich App 526, 528-529; 761 NW2d 114 (2008).

The three-year personal-injury limitations period does not bar a defendant’s counterclaim arising from the same accident as the plaintiff’s timely complaint when the counterclaim is asserted within a reasonable time during the lawsuit.

Wallace v. Patterson · filed 1978-08-21(7)

We now turn to MCL 600.5805(7); MSA 27A.5805(7), the 3-year statute of limitations in respect to personal injury claims. ... Under the facts in the case at bar, there is no need to protect plaintiff from defendant’s stale claim, in that it is no staler than his own, being based upon the very same accident. As long as the counterclaim is brought within a reasonable time during the pendency of the lawsuit, there seems to be no unfairness in allowing it. Indeed, it may well be argued that once a complaint is filed, the statute is tolled with respect to that cause of action on behalf of all of the parties involved. ... Accordingly, this Court believes that fair play and justice mandate that defendant be able to assert her counterclaim in this case.

Subsection (8) imposes a three-year limitations period for personal-injury claims; the period is tolled when the complaint is filed, and mailing the complaint alone is not filing.

Biafore v. Baker · filed 1982-09-22(8)

The statute of limitations applicable to plaintiff’s personal injury claim is three years. MCL 600.5805(8); MSA 27A.5805(8). The statute of limitations is tolled when the complaint is filed. ... Mailing the complaint does not constitute filing. ... A paper or document is filed when it is delivered to and received by the proper officer to be kept on file, and the endorsement of the officer with whom it is filed is but evidence of the time of filing.

Section 600.5805(8) provides a three-year limitations period for personal injury claims, including the section 1983 claim at issue.

Carroll v. Frank Wilkerson and William Lucas (84-1291), County of Wayne (84-1292) · filed 1986-03-12(8)

If the district court had had the benefit of the decisions in Wilson v. Garcia and Mulligan v. Hazard it would have been compelled to conclude that the present section 1983 action was subject to the three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims set forth in MCLA § 600.5805(8).

Section 600.5805 starts the three-year period for a personal-injury claim when the injury and damage are present; later damages do not create a new claim or restart the limitations period.

Sherrell v. Bugaski · filed 1988-06-06(1), (8)

MCL 600.5805; MSA 27A.5805 provides in relevant part: ... (1) A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the áction is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section. ... (8) The period of limitations is 3 years after the time of the death or injury for all other actions to recover damages for the death of a person, or for injury to a person or property. ... Once all of the elements of an action for personal injury, including the element of damage, are present, the claim accrues and the statute of limitations begins to run. Later damages may result, but they give rise to no new cause of action, nor does the statute of limitations begin to run anew as each item of damage is incurred. ... Thus, plaintiff’s cause of action accrued when she discovered the injuries for which she sued in the first action she filed in 1980. ... We, therefore, hold that plaintiffs claim had already accrued by the date of her previous lawsuit, that the statute of limitations was not tolled, and that plaintiffs claim is barred by the running of the period of limitations.