REVISED JUDICATURE ACT OF 1961
Act 236 of 1961
600.2962 Malpractice action against certified public accountant.
Sec. 2962.
(1) This section applies to an action for professional malpractice against a certified public accountant. A certified public accountant is liable for civil damages in connection with public accounting services performed by the certified public accountant only in 1 of the following situations:
(a) Subject to subsection (2), a negligent act, omission, decision, or other conduct of the certified public accountant if the claimant is the certified public accountant's client.
(b) An act, omission, decision, or conduct of the certified public accountant that constitutes fraud or an intentional misrepresentation.
(c) Subject to subsection (2), a negligent act, omission, decision, or other conduct of the certified public accountant if the certified public accountant was informed in writing directly by the client before commencement of the engagement that a primary intent of the client was for the professional public accounting services to benefit or influence the person bringing the action for civil damages. For the purposes of this subdivision, the certified public accountant shall also separately identify in writing directly to the client, before commencement of the engagement, each person, generic group, or class description that the certified public accountant intends to have rely on the services. The certified public accountant may be held liable only to each identified person, generic group, or class description. The certified public accountant's written identification shall include each person, generic group, or class description identified by the client as being benefited or influenced.
(2) A certified public accountant is not liable for civil damages in any of the following situations:
(a) The claimant is not the certified public accountant's client, but asserts standing to sue based on an assignment of the claim from the client to the claimant. This subdivision does not apply to an action arising out of an annual report required by the cemetery regulation act, 1968 PA 251, MCL 456.521 to 456.543, or the prepaid funeral and cemetery sales act, 1986 PA 255, MCL 328.211 to 328.235.
(b) The claimant is not the certified public accountant's client, but asserts standing to sue based on a voluntary surrender of assets or acquisition of the claim by means of foreclosure or surrender under any type of security agreement between the claimant and the client.
(c) The claimant is not the certified public accountant's client, but asserts standing to sue based on a writing referred to in subsection (1)(c) that was not signed by the client himself or herself, if an individual, or that was not signed by an officer, manager, or member of the client, if an entity.
History: Add. 1995, Act 249, Eff. Mar. 28, 1996 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 268, Imd. Eff. July 3, 2012
Notes of Decisions
Robert F Broz v. Plante & Moran Pllc, 928 N.W.2d 292 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Section 2962 of the Revised Judicature Act, MCL 600.2962, sets forth limitations on liability for accounting malpractice.”
Johnson v. Pastoriza, 818 N.W.2d 279 (Mich. 2012).
“18826 (concerning liability for acts or omissions of veterinarians and veterinary technicians); MCL 600.2962 (concerning liability for acts or omissions of certified public accountants); MCL 600.”
Yadlosky v. Grant Thornton, L.L.P., 120 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
· cites it 6× “2962; (2) plaintiff cannot maintain a third-party beneficiary claim because MCA investors were not intended beneficiaries of the defendants’ auditing contracts with MCA; (3) plaintiff has not plead his state fraud claim with requisite specificity, and; (4) plaintiff has not…”
Riley v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
· cites it 4× “§ 600.2962 states: This section applies to an action for professional malpractice against a certified public accountant.”
Ohio Farmers Ins. v. Shamie, 597 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
· cites it 5× “116(C)(10), holding that MCL 600.2962; MSA 27A.2962 (the accountant liability act) retroactively barred plaintiffs cause of action.”
MCA Fin. Corp. v. Grant Thornton, LLP, 687 N.W.2d 850 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004).
“5 We do note that defendant Grant Thornton points out in its brief that, under MCL 600.2962, the individual investors could not maintain such an action.”
Ohio Farmers Ins. v. Shamie, 622 N.W.2d 85 (Mich. Ct. App. 2000).
· cites it 4× “Therefore, we reaffirm our previous holding that plaintiffs claim accrued before the effective date of the accountant liability act, MCL 600.2962; MSA 27A.2962. Given our resolution of the accrual question, we need not reconsider the remaining issues addressed in our prior…”
Midwest Mem'l Grp. LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 30× “Plante Moran argued that it was entitled to summary disposition because (1) the wrongful-conduct rule barred plaintiffs’ claims, (2) plaintiffs could not establish causation given that Smart’s theft occurred before the audit and that there was no evidence that anyone relied on…”
Robert F Broz v. Plante & Moran Pllc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “Plaintiffs argued that accounting malpractice claims are governed exclusively by MCL 600.2962, and that that statute does not require a plaintiff alleging -3- accounting malpractice to present proof of the standard of care nor that the defendant breached that standard.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(1) — 6 cases
Robert F Broz v. Plante & Moran Pllc (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
“Plaintiffs argued that accounting malpractice claims are governed exclusively by MCL 600.2962, and that that statute does not require a plaintiff alleging -3- accounting malpractice to present proof of the standard of care nor that the defendant breached that standard.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(1)(a) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(1)(b) — 2 cases
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(1)(c) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(2)(a) — 1 case
Midwest Mem'l Grp. LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Plante Moran argued that it was entitled to summary disposition because (1) the wrongful-conduct rule barred plaintiffs’ claims, (2) plaintiffs could not establish causation given that Smart’s theft occurred before the audit and that there was no evidence that anyone relied on…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(a) — 2 cases
Yadlosky v. Grant Thornton, L.L.P., 120 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
“2962; (2) plaintiff cannot maintain a third-party beneficiary claim because MCA investors were not intended beneficiaries of the defendants’ auditing contracts with MCA; (3) plaintiff has not plead his state fraud claim with requisite specificity, and; (4) plaintiff has not…”
Midwest Mem'l Grp. LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Plante Moran argued that it was entitled to summary disposition because (1) the wrongful-conduct rule barred plaintiffs’ claims, (2) plaintiffs could not establish causation given that Smart’s theft occurred before the audit and that there was no evidence that anyone relied on…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(b) — 2 cases
Yadlosky v. Grant Thornton, L.L.P., 120 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
“2962; (2) plaintiff cannot maintain a third-party beneficiary claim because MCA investors were not intended beneficiaries of the defendants’ auditing contracts with MCA; (3) plaintiff has not plead his state fraud claim with requisite specificity, and; (4) plaintiff has not…”
Midwest Mem'l Grp. LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Plante Moran argued that it was entitled to summary disposition because (1) the wrongful-conduct rule barred plaintiffs’ claims, (2) plaintiffs could not establish causation given that Smart’s theft occurred before the audit and that there was no evidence that anyone relied on…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(c) — 4 cases
Riley v. Ameritech Corp., Inc., 147 F. Supp. 2d 762 (E.D. Mich. 2001).
“§ 600.2962 states: This section applies to an action for professional malpractice against a certified public accountant.”
Yadlosky v. Grant Thornton, L.L.P., 120 F. Supp. 2d 622 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
“2962; (2) plaintiff cannot maintain a third-party beneficiary claim because MCA investors were not intended beneficiaries of the defendants’ auditing contracts with MCA; (3) plaintiff has not plead his state fraud claim with requisite specificity, and; (4) plaintiff has not…”
Ohio Farmers Ins. v. Shamie, 597 N.W.2d 553 (Mich. Ct. App. 1999).
“116(C)(10), holding that MCL 600.2962; MSA 27A.2962 (the accountant liability act) retroactively barred plaintiffs cause of action.”
Midwest Mem'l Grp. LLC v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
“Plante Moran argued that it was entitled to summary disposition because (1) the wrongful-conduct rule barred plaintiffs’ claims, (2) plaintiffs could not establish causation given that Smart’s theft occurred before the audit and that there was no evidence that anyone relied on…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2962(l)(b) — 1 case
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.