Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 691 / Act 170 of 1964
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417 (2026)

Damages or physical injuries caused by sewage disposal system event; compliance of claimant and governmental agency with relief provisions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE


Act 170 of 1964


691.1417 Damages or physical injuries caused by sewage disposal system event; compliance of claimant and governmental agency with relief provisions.

Sec. 17.

    (1) To afford property owners, individuals, and governmental agencies greater efficiency, certainty, and consistency in the provision of relief for damages or physical injuries caused by a sewage disposal system event, a claimant and a governmental agency subject to a claim shall comply with this section and the procedures in sections 18 and 19.

    (2) A governmental agency is immune from tort liability for the overflow or backup of a sewage disposal system unless the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal system event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency. Sections 16 to 19 abrogate common law exceptions, if any, to immunity for the overflow or backup of a sewage disposal system and provide the sole remedy for obtaining any form of relief for damages or physical injuries caused by a sewage disposal system event regardless of the legal theory.

    (3) If a claimant, including a claimant seeking noneconomic damages, believes that an event caused property damage or physical injury, the claimant may seek compensation for the property damage or physical injury from a governmental agency if the claimant shows that all of the following existed at the time of the event:

    (a) The governmental agency was an appropriate governmental agency.

    (b) The sewage disposal system had a defect.

    (c) The governmental agency knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have known, about the defect.

    (d) The governmental agency, having the legal authority to do so, failed to take reasonable steps in a reasonable amount of time to repair, correct, or remedy the defect.

    (e) The defect was a substantial proximate cause of the event and the property damage or physical injury.

    (4) In addition to the requirements of subsection (3), to obtain compensation for property damage or physical injury from a governmental agency, a claimant must show both of the following:

    (a) If any of the damaged property is personal property, reasonable proof of ownership and the value of the damaged personal property. Reasonable proof may include testimony or records documenting the ownership, purchase price, or value of the property, or photographic or similar evidence showing the value of the property.

    (b) The claimant complied with section 19.

History: Add. 2001, Act 222, Imd. Eff. Jan. 2, 2002

PopularName Notes:

Governmental Immunity Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (23 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case: Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 106× “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 75× “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 11× “” RPS additionally argued that the township had failed to plead in avoidance of RPS’s governmental immunity because it could not satisfy all of the elements of the “sewage disposal system event” exception to the GTLA, as outlined in MCL 691.1417. Specifically, RPS argued that…”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 12× “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
Bosanic v. Motz Dev., Inc, 745 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 14× “Defendant contends that summary disposition was warranted because the statute providing an exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1417, does not itself provide a cause of action, and plaintiffs have not alleged any separate cause of action.”
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 4× “1413; and the sewage system event exception, MCL 691.1417. [34] See the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.”
Pohutski v. City of Allen Park, 641 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 2× “[MCL 691.1417(2).] This language acknowledges that there are or, at least, may be common-law exceptions to governmental immunity.”
Rowland v. Washtenaw Cnty. Road Comm'n, 731 N.W.2d 41 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 2× “1407(4); and the sewage disposal system exception, MCL 691.1417. Further, as we recognized in Mack v.”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 2× “1407(4); and (6) the sewage-disposal-system exception, MCL 691.1417. [3] Const. 1963, art. 7, § 29 provides that "the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such…”
Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 769 N.W.2d 234 (Mich. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “1416; MCL 691.1417; Wesche v. Mecosta Co. Rd. Comm.”
in Re Bradley Est., 835 N.W.2d 545 (Mich. 2013). · cites it 2× “, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases: * * * (c) All attorneys, counselors, clerks, registers, sheriffs, coroners, and all other persons in any manner elected or appointed to perform any judicial or ministerial…”
Grimes v. Dep't of Transp., 715 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 2× “1402; the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public building exception, MCL 691.”
Show all 99 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(1) — 11 cases
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(1)(b) — 1 case
Dale Kerbyson v. Elba Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(2) — 72 cases
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Pohutski v. City of Allen Park, 641 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2002). “[MCL 691.1417(2).] This language acknowledges that there are or, at least, may be common-law exceptions to governmental immunity.”
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” RPS additionally argued that the township had failed to plead in avoidance of RPS’s governmental immunity because it could not satisfy all of the elements of the “sewage disposal system event” exception to the GTLA, as outlined in MCL 691.1417. Specifically, RPS argued that…”
Wesche v. Mecosta Cnty. Road Comm'n, 746 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. 2008).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(3) — 35 cases
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Bosanic v. Motz Dev., Inc, 745 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Defendant contends that summary disposition was warranted because the statute providing an exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1417, does not itself provide a cause of action, and plaintiffs have not alleged any separate cause of action.”
Jackson Cnty. Drain Comm'r v. Vill. of Stockbridge, 717 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Auth. (Mich. Ct. App. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(3)(a) — 14 cases
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Kevin Helme v. City of Clawson (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(3)(b) — 20 cases
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” RPS additionally argued that the township had failed to plead in avoidance of RPS’s governmental immunity because it could not satisfy all of the elements of the “sewage disposal system event” exception to the GTLA, as outlined in MCL 691.1417. Specifically, RPS argued that…”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Auth. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(3)(c) — 22 cases
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
Echelon Homes, LLC v. Carter Lumber Co., 694 N.W.2d 544 (Mich. 2005).
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” RPS additionally argued that the township had failed to plead in avoidance of RPS’s governmental immunity because it could not satisfy all of the elements of the “sewage disposal system event” exception to the GTLA, as outlined in MCL 691.1417. Specifically, RPS argued that…”
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(3)(d) — 23 cases
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” RPS additionally argued that the township had failed to plead in avoidance of RPS’s governmental immunity because it could not satisfy all of the elements of the “sewage disposal system event” exception to the GTLA, as outlined in MCL 691.1417. Specifically, RPS argued that…”
Bosanic v. Motz Dev., Inc, 745 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Defendant contends that summary disposition was warranted because the statute providing an exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1417, does not itself provide a cause of action, and plaintiffs have not alleged any separate cause of action.”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
Jerome Dubrulle v. Great Lakes Water Auth. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(3)(e) — 18 cases
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” RPS additionally argued that the township had failed to plead in avoidance of RPS’s governmental immunity because it could not satisfy all of the elements of the “sewage disposal system event” exception to the GTLA, as outlined in MCL 691.1417. Specifically, RPS argued that…”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
Bosanic v. Motz Dev., Inc, 745 N.W.2d 513 (Mich. Ct. App. 2008). “Defendant contends that summary disposition was warranted because the statute providing an exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1417, does not itself provide a cause of action, and plaintiffs have not alleged any separate cause of action.”
Deanna Ray v. City of Lansing (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(4) — 3 cases
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “In response, plaintiff argued that defendant was not entitled to governmental immunity because MCL 691.1417 provides an exception to immunity where the overflow or backup is a sewage disposal event and the governmental agency is an appropriate governmental agency.”
William Lanzi v. Twp. of St Clair (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
William Lanzi v. Twp. of St Clair (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(4)(a) — 3 cases
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” RPS additionally argued that the township had failed to plead in avoidance of RPS’s governmental immunity because it could not satisfy all of the elements of the “sewage disposal system event” exception to the GTLA, as outlined in MCL 691.1417. Specifically, RPS argued that…”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(4)(b) — 5 cases
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “” RPS additionally argued that the township had failed to plead in avoidance of RPS’s governmental immunity because it could not satisfy all of the elements of the “sewage disposal system event” exception to the GTLA, as outlined in MCL 691.1417. Specifically, RPS argued that…”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006). “” But the issue whether the roadside drainage ditch here is part of a “storm water drain system” requires further inquiry and consideration on remand.”
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
Zezula v Brown (Mich. 2026).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(a) — 1 case
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(b) — 1 case
Brian Zezula v. Nina Brown (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(c) — 1 case
Dale Kerbyson v. Elba Twp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(e) — 3 cases
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014). “] Thus, if plaintiff can establish the elements set forth in MCL 691.1417, he can recover for his losses.”
Deanna Ray v. City of Lansing (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Deanna Ray v. City of Lansing (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1417(j) — 1 case
Detroit Invest Corp v. Detroit Water & Sewerage Dep't (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
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.