Michigan Compiled Laws
Mich. Comp. Laws § 390.1126 (2026)
Assumption by state of excess loss of university or its agents; conditions.
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
INDEMNIFICATION RESERVE FUND
Act 315 of 1977
390.1126 Assumption by state of excess loss of university or its agents; conditions.
Sec. 6.
The state shall assume the excess loss of the university or its agents if the university adopts an indemnification and hold harmless policy in which the university agrees to indemnify, save harmless, and defend its agents against professional liability and premises liability arising out of, related to, or incurred in the course of, employment, assigned duties, course of academic studies, or authority and establishes an indemnification reserve fund consistent with this act.
History: 1977, Act 315, Imd. Eff. Jan. 9, 1978 ;-- Am. 1982, Act 24, Imd. Eff. Mar. 4, 1982
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2017–2024 · leading case: Shean Satgunam v. Michigan State Univ. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Shean Satgunam v. Michigan State Univ. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1126 provides: The state shall assume the excess loss of the university or its agents if the university adopts an indemnification and hold harmless policy in which the university agrees to indemnify, save harmless, and defend its agents against professional liability and…”
Shean Satgunam v. Michigan State Univ. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017). “1126 provides: The state shall assume the excess loss of the university or its agents if the university adopts an indemnification and hold harmless policy in which the university agrees to indemnify, save harmless, and defend its agents against professional liability and…”
Est. of Riley Robinson v. Larry Robinson Sr (Mich. 2024). “, MCL 390.1126, MCL 691.1402a(5), and MCL 333.”
Est. of Riley Robinson v. Larry Robinson Sr (Mich. 2024). “, MCL 390.1126, MCL 691.1402a(5), and MCL 333.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.