In Nuculovic v. Johnny Dean Hill and SMART Bus, Inc., 287 Mich App 58; 783 NW2d 124 (2010), the Court of Appeals interpreted MCL 124.419, the “60-day” notice provision barring claims against transportation authorities for a failure to provide written service of notice of a claim to the transportation authority within 60 days.
Representing defendant, the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transport (SMART) and its driver, Mr. Tucker prepared a brief in an appeal from a lower court judgment in SMART’s favor finding that the plaintiff had failed to provide written notice of a claim to SMART within the 60-days required by statutory law for tort claims filed against transportation authorities.
In a published opinion, the Court of Appeals affirmed, agreeing with Mr. Tucker’s arguments that in order for a claimant to successfully survive summary disposition in a suit for tort claims against SMART the claimant must service written notice of the particular claim upon SMART within the 60-day notice period. The Court of Appeals concluded that plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate that she had served written notice of her claim upon SMART precluded her right to bring suit for damages arising out of the alleged incident. This issue is the subject of continued debate, with at least 4 applications (including this case) for leave to appeal currently residing in the Michigan Supreme Court concerning the validity of the 60-day notice provision.