GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE
Act 170 of 1964
691.1419 Notice of claim; requirements.
Sec. 19.
(1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (7), a claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 17 unless the claimant notifies the governmental agency of a claim of damage or physical injury, in writing, within 45 days after the date the damage or physical injury was discovered, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence should have been discovered. The written notice under this subsection shall contain the content required by subsection (2)(c) and shall be sent to the individual within the governmental agency designated in subsection (2)(b). To facilitate compliance with this section, a governmental agency owning or operating a sewage disposal system shall make available public information about the provision of notice under this section.
(2) If a person who owns or occupies affected property notifies a contacting agency orally or in writing of an event before providing a notice of a claim that complies with subsection (1), the contacting agency shall provide the person with all of the following information in writing:
(a) A sufficiently detailed explanation of the notice requirements of subsection (1) to allow a claimant to comply with the requirements.
(b) The name and address of the individual within the governmental agency to whom a claimant must send written notice under subsection (1).
(c) The required content of the written notice under subsection (1), which is limited to the claimant's name, address, and telephone number, the address of the affected property, the date of discovery of any property damages or physical injuries, and a brief description of the claim.
(3) A claimant's failure to comply with the notice requirements of subsection (1) does not bar the claimant from bringing a civil action under section 17 against a governmental agency notified under subsection (2) if the claimant can show both of the following:
(a) The claimant notified the contacting agency under subsection (2) during the period for giving notice under subsection (1).
(b) The claimant's failure to comply with the notice requirements of subsection (1) resulted from the contacting agency's failure to comply with subsection (2).
(4) If a governmental agency that is notified of a claim under subsection (1) believes that a different or additional governmental agency may be responsible for the claimed property damages or physical injuries, the governmental agency shall notify the contacting agency of each additional or different governmental agency of that fact, in writing, within 15 business days after the date the governmental agency receives the claimant's notice under subsection (1). This subsection is intended to allow a different or additional governmental agency to inspect a claimant's property or investigate a claimant's physical injury before litigation. Failure by a governmental agency to provide notice under this subsection to a different or additional governmental agency does not bar a civil action by the governmental agency against the different or additional governmental agency.
(5) If a governmental agency receives a notice from a claimant or a different or additional governmental agency that complies with this section, the governmental agency receiving notice may inspect the damaged property or investigate the physical injury. A claimant or the owner or occupant of affected property shall not unreasonably refuse to allow a governmental agency subject to a claim to inspect damaged property or investigate a physical injury. This subsection does not prohibit a governmental agency from subsequently inspecting damaged property or investigating a physical injury during a civil action brought under section 17.
(6) If a governmental agency notified of a claim under subsection (1) and a claimant do not reach an agreement on the amount of compensation for the property damage or physical injury within 45 days after the receipt of notice under this section, the claimant may institute a civil action. A civil action shall not be commenced under section 17 until after that 45 days.
(7) This section does not apply to claims for noneconomic damages made under section 17.
History: Add. 2001, Act 222, Imd. Eff. Jan. 2, 2002
PopularName Notes:
Governmental Immunity Act
Notes of Decisions
Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 718 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 12× “1416 through MCL 691.1419, contending that plaintiff failed to show that defendant's sewage disposal system had a defect and that defendant knew or should have known of the defect and failed to take reasonable steps to correct the defect.”
Dybata v. Wayne Cnty., 287 Mich. App. 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 10× “Section 19 of the GTLA, MCL 691.1419, provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (7), a claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 17 unless the claimant notifies the governmental agency of a claim of damage or physical injury, in…”
Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Schs., 875 N.W.2d 242 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 2× “1416 through MCL 691.1419. MCL 691.1417(2) provides that “[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…”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
· cites it 3× “1416 through MCL 691.1419, which “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.”
Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor, 863 N.W.2d 698 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 5× “1416 through MCL 691.1419 in order to establish an exception to governmental immunity and that plaintiff failed to establish that defendant breached a duty under the circumstances presented in this case.”
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 42× “Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
Jackson Cnty. Drain Comm'r v. Vill. of Stockbridge, 717 N.W.2d 391 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“There was no evidence that the Ingham County Drain Commissioner or the Jacobs Lake Drain District had the legal authority to repair a defect to a drain that was located in Jackson County.”
Zezula v Brown (Mich. 2026).
· cites it 25× “1416 through MCL 691.1419, and that Zezula had failed to provide notice of an SDSE event as required by MCL 691.”
Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 15× “The purpose of the exception is “[t]o 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[.”
Frederick R Wheeler v. City of Livonia (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 7× “Defendant argued that the claim is barred because (1) plaintiffs failed to comply with the 45-day notice requirement of MCL 691.1419, and (2) neither2 occurrence alleged by plaintiffs constituted a “sewage disposal system event” in that (a) plaintiffs were responsible to…”
Detroit Invest Corp v. Detroit Water & Sewerage Dep't (Mich. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 7× “Subsection (1) requires the plaintiff to give written notice of a claim: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (7), a claimant is not entitled to compensation under [MCL 691.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(1) — 9 cases
Dybata v. Wayne Cnty., 287 Mich. App. 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“Section 19 of the GTLA, MCL 691.1419, provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (7), a claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 17 unless the claimant notifies the governmental agency of a claim of damage or physical injury, in…”
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
Zezula v Brown (Mich. 2026).
“1416 through MCL 691.1419, and that Zezula had failed to provide notice of an SDSE event as required by MCL 691.”
Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The purpose of the exception is “[t]o 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[.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(2) — 8 cases
Dybata v. Wayne Cnty., 287 Mich. App. 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“Section 19 of the GTLA, MCL 691.1419, provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (7), a claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 17 unless the claimant notifies the governmental agency of a claim of damage or physical injury, in…”
Linton v. Arenac Cnty. Road Comm'n, 729 N.W.2d 883 (Mich. Ct. App. 2006).
“1416 through MCL 691.1419, which “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.”
Zezula v Brown (Mich. 2026).
“1416 through MCL 691.1419, and that Zezula had failed to provide notice of an SDSE event as required by MCL 691.”
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(2)(b) — 2 cases
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(2)(c) — 1 case
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(3) — 6 cases
Dybata v. Wayne Cnty., 287 Mich. App. 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“Section 19 of the GTLA, MCL 691.1419, provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (7), a claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 17 unless the claimant notifies the governmental agency of a claim of damage or physical injury, in…”
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
Frederick R Wheeler v. City of Livonia (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Defendant argued that the claim is barred because (1) plaintiffs failed to comply with the 45-day notice requirement of MCL 691.1419, and (2) neither2 occurrence alleged by plaintiffs constituted a “sewage disposal system event” in that (a) plaintiffs were responsible to…”
Zezula v Brown (Mich. 2026).
“1416 through MCL 691.1419, and that Zezula had failed to provide notice of an SDSE event as required by MCL 691.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(3)(a) — 2 cases
Dybata v. Wayne Cnty., 287 Mich. App. 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“Section 19 of the GTLA, MCL 691.1419, provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (7), a claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 17 unless the claimant notifies the governmental agency of a claim of damage or physical injury, in…”
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(3)(b) — 2 cases
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(4) — 3 cases
Dybata v. Wayne Cnty., 287 Mich. App. 635 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
“Section 19 of the GTLA, MCL 691.1419, provides, in pertinent part: (1) Except as provided in subsections (3) and (7), a claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 17 unless the claimant notifies the governmental agency of a claim of damage or physical injury, in…”
Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The purpose of the exception is “[t]o 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[.”
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(6) — 1 case
Victoria Morales v. City of Lincoln Park (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
“The purpose of the exception is “[t]o 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[.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1419(7) — 1 case
David Alley v. Charter Twp. of Mundy (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
“Flint also moved for summary disposition, asserting that plaintiffs had not pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the second amended complaint was too broadly worded, and that plaintiffs failed to provide statutory notice pursuant to MCL 691.1419. In…”
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.