MCL § 600.5839 – Statute of repose for improvements to real property
Table of Contents
Code Details
Chapter 600
Act 236 of 1961
236-1961-58
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
Sec. 5839.(1) A person shall not maintain an action to recover damages for injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, or an action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained as a result of such injury, against any state licensed architect or professional engineer performing or furnishing the design or supervision of construction of the improvement, or against any contractor making the improvement, unless the action is commenced within either of the following periods:
(a) Six years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement.
(b) If the defect constitutes the proximate cause of the injury or damage for which the action is brought and is the result of gross negligence on the part of the contractor or licensed architect or professional engineer, 1 year after the defect is discovered or should have been discovered. However, an action to which this subdivision applies shall not be maintained more than 10 years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement.
(2) A person shall not maintain an action to recover damages based on error or negligence of a licensed professional surveyor in the preparation of a survey or report more than 6 years after the survey or report is recorded or is delivered to the person for whom it was made or the person’s agent.
(3) As used in this section:
(a) “Contractor” means an individual, corporation, partnership, or other business entity that makes an improvement to real property.
(b) “State licensed architect or professional engineer” or “licensed professional surveyor” means an individual so licensed, or a corporation, partnership, or other business entity on behalf of whom the state licensed architect or professional engineer or licensed professional surveyor is performing or directing the performance of the architectural, professional engineering, or land surveying service.
(4) The amendments to this section made by the 2011 amendatory act that added this subsection apply to causes of action that accrue on or after the effective date of that amendatory act.
MCL § 600.5839 Summary
This Michigan statute establishes a “statute of repose” for lawsuits brought against professionals involved in the design and construction of real property improvements. It sets strict deadlines for filing claims related to injuries, property damage, or wrongful death resulting from defective or unsafe conditions in such improvements. Generally, a lawsuit against a licensed architect, professional engineer, or contractor must be filed within six years from the time the improvement was occupied, used, or accepted.
There’s an exception for cases involving gross negligence. If a defect causing injury or damage is due to gross negligence, the lawsuit can be filed within one year of discovering the defect. However, even with gross negligence, the absolute deadline is ten years from the occupancy, use, or acceptance of the improvement. The statute also applies to licensed professional surveyors, requiring actions based on their errors or negligence to be filed within six years of the survey being recorded or delivered. This law aims to protect these professionals from indefinite liability for their work.
Purpose of MCL § 600.5839
The legislative intent behind this Michigan statute is to provide a definitive end to liability for individuals and entities involved in the design and construction of real property improvements. Without such a statute of repose, architects, engineers, and contractors could face potential lawsuits for decades, or even indefinitely, after their work is completed. This perpetual threat of litigation can hinder innovation, increase insurance costs, and create significant uncertainty within the construction industry.
By establishing clear time limits, MCL § 600.5839 allows these professionals to eventually close their books on past projects, ensuring a reasonable degree of finality and predictability. This encourages investment in the construction sector by mitigating the risks associated with long-term liability. While safeguarding the public through accountability for negligence, the statute simultaneously recognizes the practical need for professionals to manage their exposure over time, balancing the rights of injured parties with the economic realities of the building and design industries.
Real-World Example of MCL § 600.5839
Imagine a new community center that opened its doors in January 2015. ABC Architects designed the building, and XYZ Construction handled the build. In 2020, a significant crack appeared in a load-bearing wall, leading to structural instability. A community member, Sarah, was injured when a portion of the ceiling collapsed as a direct result of this structural defect.
Sarah wants to sue ABC Architects and XYZ Construction. Under MCL § 600.5839, the initial six-year statute of repose began in January 2015 when the building was occupied and accepted. This six-year period would have expired in January 2021. If Sarah’s injury occurred in late 2020, she might still be within the initial six-year window, depending on the exact date she files her claim.
However, let’s say Sarah’s injury occurred in 2023, eight years after occupancy. In this scenario, the initial six-year period would have already passed. To proceed, Sarah would need to prove that the defect was the result of *gross negligence* on the part of ABC Architects or XYZ Construction. If she can demonstrate gross negligence, she would then have one year from the date she discovered (or should have discovered) the defect to file her lawsuit. Even with gross negligence, this claim would still need to be filed before January 2025 – the ten-year absolute deadline from the time of occupancy – otherwise, her claim would be barred by the statute of repose, regardless of when she discovered the defect.
Related Statutes
While MCL § 600.5839 specifically addresses the statute of repose for improvements to real property, several other Michigan statutes of limitation and repose are relevant in the broader context of personal injury and construction litigation:
- MCL § 600.5805 – General personal injury statute of limitations: This is Michigan’s general statute of limitations for personal injury claims, typically setting a three-year limit for most negligence actions. It works in conjunction with MCL § 600.5839; if a claim falls within the statute of repose, it still must meet the general statute of limitations within that repose period.
- MCL § 600.5807 – Contract actions and property damage: This statute outlines limitation periods for various contract-based actions and certain types of property damage, which might be relevant if a claim against a contractor or professional is based on a breach of contract rather than solely tortious conduct.
- MCL § 339.2001 et seq. – Occupational Code: This chapter outlines the licensing requirements and professional standards for architects, engineers, and surveyors in Michigan. While not a statute of limitations, violations of these professional standards could form the basis for negligence or gross negligence claims referenced in MCL § 600.5839.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 600.5839
Michigan courts have frequently interpreted MCL § 600.5839 to clarify its application, particularly concerning what constitutes an “improvement to real property” and the distinctions between a statute of limitations and a statute of repose.
A foundational case in understanding this statute is `O’Bryan v. Michigan State University`. This case, among others, has helped define the scope of the “improvement to real property” clause and when the six-year and ten-year periods begin. The courts emphasize that a statute of repose creates an absolute bar to a cause of action, irrespective of when the injury is discovered, unlike a statute of limitations, which typically begins to run upon discovery of the injury.
Another key case is `Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Cont’l Ins. Co.`, which further explored the application of this statute to contribution and indemnity claims, and the definition of who qualifies as a “contractor” for the purposes of the repose period. Courts have consistently held that the statute of repose extinguishes the cause of action itself, not merely the remedy, once the specified period has passed.
For more information and to view relevant judicial opinions, you can search for these cases on Google Scholar:
Why MCL § 600.5839 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
This Michigan statute is critically important in personal injury litigation because it can serve as an absolute bar to recovery, even if a plaintiff has suffered severe injuries due to a clear defect. For plaintiffs, understanding MCL § 600.5839 is paramount because it dictates the window within which a lawsuit *must* be filed against architects, engineers, and contractors for construction-related injuries. A plaintiff might have a strong case for negligence, but if the incident occurs beyond the six-year or ten-year repose period, their claim could be extinguished entirely, regardless of when the injury was discovered or how severe it is. This necessitates prompt investigation of any potential construction defect claims.
For defense attorneys representing architects, engineers, or contractors, MCL § 600.5839 is a powerful affirmative defense. It allows them to argue for dismissal of a case if the repose period has expired, potentially avoiding the need to litigate the merits of the alleged defect or injury. The distinction between the general three-year statute of limitations and this specific statute of repose is also crucial. While the statute of limitations typically begins when an injury is discovered, the statute of repose starts from the date of occupancy, use, or acceptance of the improvement, putting a hard deadline on liability regardless of discovery. This makes MCL § 600.5839 a frequently litigated and often dispositive aspect of personal injury cases stemming from real property improvements in Michigan.