wrong upon claim in Michigan

2018MCL 600.5827 provides that a claim generally accrues “at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” The date of the “wrong” referred to in MCL 600.5827 is “the date on which the defendant’s breach harmed the plaintiff, as opposed to the date on which the defendant breached his duty.” Moll v Abbott Laboratories, 444 Mich 1, 12 ; 506 NW2d 816 (1993), citing Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Equip Repair & Serv Co, 388 Mich 146 ; 200 NW2d 70 (1972).

2018MCL 600.5827 provides that a claim generally accrues “at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” The date of the “wrong” referred to in MCL 600.5827 is “the date on which the defendant’s breach harmed the plaintiff, as opposed to the date on which the defendant breached his duty.” Moll v Abbott Laboratories, 444 Mich 1, 12 ; 506 NW2d 816 (1993), citing Connelly v Paul Ruddy’s Equip Repair & Serv Co, 388 Mich 146 ; 200 NW2d 70 (1972).

2023Unless otherwise provided by statute, “the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damages results.” Id. “[T]his Court has generally held that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues when the breach occurs, i.e., when the promisor fails to perform under the contract.” Blazer Foods, Inc v Restaurant Props, Inc, 259 Mich App 241, 245-246 ; 673 NW2d 805 (2003). -3- As the trial court observed, resolution of the statute-of-limitations issue depends on when plaintiff’s claims accrued.

2023Unless otherwise provided by statute, “the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damages results.” Id. “[T]his Court has generally held that a cause of action for breach of contract accrues when the breach occurs, i.e., when the promisor fails to perform under the contract.” Blazer Foods, Inc v Restaurant Props, Inc, 259 Mich App 241, 245-246 ; 673 NW2d 805 (2003). -3- As the trial court observed, resolution of the statute-of-limitations issue depends on when plaintiff’s claims accrued.

2022ANALYSIS MCL 600.5807(9) states: “The period of limitations is 6 years for an action to recover damages or money due for breach of contract. . . .” In pertinent part, MCL 600.5827 states: “[T]he period of limitations runs from the time the claim accrues . . . . [T]he claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” “For a breach of contract action, the limitations period generally begins to run on the date that the breach occurs.” Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess, Deitch & Serlin, PC v Bakshi, 483 Mich 345, 355 ; 771 NW2d 411 (200

2022ANALYSIS MCL 600.5807(9) states: “The period of limitations is 6 years for an action to recover damages or money due for breach of contract. . . .” In pertinent part, MCL 600.5827 states: “[T]he period of limitations runs from the time the claim accrues . . . . [T]he claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” “For a breach of contract action, the limitations period generally begins to run on the date that the breach occurs.” Seyburn, Kahn, Ginn, Bess, Deitch & Serlin, PC v Bakshi, 483 Mich 345, 355 ; 771 NW2d 411 (200

2015MCL 600.5827 provides in part that the “period of limitation runs from the time the claim accrues,” which “accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” In the Court of Claims, a claim accrues for purposes of MCL 600.3431(1) when the “the suit may be maintained thereon.” Cooke Contracting Co v State, 55 Mich App 336, 338 ; 222 NW2d 231 (1974).

2015MCL 600.5827 provides in part that the “period of limitation runs from the time the claim accrues,” which “accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” In the Court of Claims, a claim accrues for purposes of MCL 600.3431(1) when the “the suit may be maintained thereon.” Cooke Contracting Co v State, 55 Mich App 336, 338 ; 222 NW2d 231 (1974).

2024A breach-of-contract claim accrues “at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 429, 458 ; 761 NW2d 846 (2008), quoting MCL 600.5827.

2024A breach-of-contract claim accrues “at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” Tenneco Inc v Amerisure Mut Ins Co, 281 Mich App 429, 458 ; 761 NW2d 846 (2008), quoting MCL 600.5827.

2022In Michigan, a claim for breach of contract accrues “ ‘at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.’ ” Scherer v Hellstrom, 270 Mich App 458, 463 ; 716 NW2d 307 (2006), quoting MCL 600.5827.

2022In Michigan, a claim for breach of contract accrues “ ‘at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.’ ” Scherer v Hellstrom, 270 Mich App 458, 463 ; 716 NW2d 307 (2006), quoting MCL 600.5827.

2022MCL 600.6452(1) provides that a claim against the state in the Court of Claims must be filed “within 3 years after the claim first accrues.” A claim accrues “at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” Terlecki v Stewart, 278 Mich App 644, 652 ; 754 NW2d 899 (2008).

2016However, to the extent that plaintiffs allege defendant continued to maintain the berm in a negligent manner after October 28, 2010, which resulted in further erosion, those claims are not time-barred under MCL 600.5805(10).2 See Terlecki, 278 Mich App at 652 , quoting MCL 600.5827 (explaining that a claim accrues “‘at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.’”) Therefore, the trial court erred in part when it held that plaintiffs’ nuisance and negligence claims were time-barred in their entirety.

2018"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 , 474 Mich. 21 , 24, 706 N.W.2d 420 (2005), quoting MCL 600.5827.

2018"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 , 474 Mich. 21 , 24, 706 N.W.2d 420 (2005), quoting MCL 600.5827.

2007The claim accrues at the time provided in sections 5829 to 5838, and in cases not covered by these sections the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results. [Emphasis added.] The statute does not define “wrong” or “damage,” but this Court has already examined these terms and provided the following analysis: Defendants argue that the statutory provision “* * * the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results” means, in the context of this case, that

2007The claim accrues at the time provided in sections 5829 to 5838, and in cases not covered by these sections the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results. [Emphasis added.] The statute does not define “wrong” or “damage,” but this Court has already examined these terms and provided the following analysis: Defendants argue that the statutory provision “* * * the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results” means, in the context of this case, that

2018However, if a claim is based on the malpractice of a person who is, or holds himself or herself out to be, a member of a state licensed profession[, the claim] accrues at the time that person discontinues serving the plaintiff in a professional or pseudoprofessional capacity as to the matters out of which the claim for malpractice arose, regardless of the time the plaintiff discovers or otherwise has knowledge of the claim. [MCL 600.5838(1).] Put simply, “[a]ccrual of a malpractice action . . . occurs on the last day of professional service.” Gebhardt v O’Rourke, 444 Mich 535, 543 ; 510 NW2d 9

2018However, if a claim is based on the malpractice of a person who is, or holds himself or herself out to be, a member of a state licensed profession[, the claim] accrues at the time that person discontinues serving the plaintiff in a professional or pseudoprofessional capacity as to the matters out of which the claim for malpractice arose, regardless of the time the plaintiff discovers or otherwise has knowledge of the claim. [MCL 600.5838(1).] Put simply, “[a]ccrual of a malpractice action . . . occurs on the last day of professional service.” Gebhardt v O’Rourke, 444 Mich 535, 543 ; 510 NW2d 9

2007Both of these provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in chapter 58, the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit: 9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances w

2007Both of the above provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit:9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances would be u

2007Both of these provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in chapter 58, the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit: 9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances w

2007Both of the above provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit:9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances would be u

2007Both of these provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in chapter 58, the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit: 9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances w

2007Both of the above provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit:9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances would be u

1989Our statute further provides that a negligence claim accrues at the time of the negligent act, regardless of when damage results: Except as otherwise expressly provided . . . the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results. [MCL 600.5827; MSA 27A.5827.] The purposes of statutes of limitation are set forth in Lothian v Detroit, 414 Mich 160, 166-167 ; 324 NW2d 9 (1982): Limitations periods created by statute are grounded in a number of worthy policy considerations.

1989Our statute further provides that a negligence claim accrues at the time of the negligent act, regardless of when damage results: Except as otherwise expressly provided . . . the claim accrues at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results. [MCL 600.5827; MSA 27A.5827.] The purposes of statutes of limitation are set forth in Lothian v Detroit, 414 Mich 160, 166-167 ; 324 NW2d 9 (1982): Limitations periods created by statute are grounded in a number of worthy policy considerations.

2007Both of these provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in chapter 58, the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit: 9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances w

2007Both of the above provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit:9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances would be u

2007Both of these provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in chapter 58, the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit: 9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances w

2007Both of these provisions appear in the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.5801 et seq., in chapter 58, the chapter entitled “Limitation of Actions.” The policy considerations behind the enactment of statutes of limitations were noted by this Court in Lothian v Detroit: 9 They encourage the prompt recovery of damages, Buzzn v Muncey Cartage Co, 248 Mich 64, 67 ; 226 NW 836 (1929); they penalize plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, First National Bank of Ovid v Steel, 146 Mich 308 ; 109 NW 423 (1906); they “afford security against stale demands when the circumstances w

2024This Court then provided caselaw regarding the “wrong” referenced in the statute and when an ordinary negligence claim accrues in Michigan: “For purposes of MCL 600.5827, the term ‘wrong’ refers to the date on which the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant’s act, not the date on which the defendant acted negligently because that would permit a cause of action to be barred before any injury resulted.” Schaendorf v Consumers Energy Co, 275 Mich App 507, 512 ; 739 NW2d 402 (2007) (emphasis added).

2024This Court then provided caselaw regarding the “wrong” referenced in the statute and when an ordinary negligence claim accrues in Michigan: “For purposes of MCL 600.5827, the term ‘wrong’ refers to the date on which the plaintiff was harmed by the defendant’s act, not the date on which the defendant acted negligently because that would permit a cause of action to be barred before any injury resulted.” Schaendorf v Consumers Energy Co, 275 Mich App 507, 512 ; 739 NW2d 402 (2007) (emphasis added).

2022A claim under § 6431 accrues when “ ‘the wrong upon which the claim is based was done.’ ” Mays, 323 Mich App at 14 .

2019The Court explained that “the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action” was synonymous with “when a claim accrues,” and that a claim accrues “at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when damage results.” Id. at __; slip op. at 11.