MCL § 600.5855 – Fraudulent concealment; tolling
Table of Contents
Code Details
Chapter 600
Act 236 of 1961
236-1961-58
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
600.5855 Fraudulent concealment of claim or identity of person liable; discovery.
Sec. 5855.
If a person who is or may be liable for any claim fraudulently conceals the existence of the claim or the identity of any person who is liable for the claim from the knowledge of the person entitled to sue on the claim, the action may be commenced at any time within 2 years after the person who is entitled to bring the action discovers, or should have discovered, the existence of the claim or the identity of the person who is liable for the claim, although the action would otherwise be barred by the period of limitations.
MCL § 600.5855 Summary
This Michigan statute addresses situations where a potential defendant actively hides a personal injury claim or their own involvement from the injured party. It functions as an exception to the standard statutes of limitations. Essentially, if someone who could be held responsible for an injury or wrongdoing intentionally keeps the victim unaware of the claim’s existence or their identity, the usual deadline for filing a lawsuit is extended. Under this rule, the injured person then has two years to file their lawsuit, starting from the point they actually uncover, or reasonably should have uncovered, the hidden claim or the responsible party’s identity. This means that even if the normal time limit for filing a suit has already passed, the action can still proceed if fraudulent concealment occurred.
Purpose of MCL § 600.5855 – Fraudulent concealment; tolling
The legislative intent behind this specific Michigan statute is rooted in the fundamental principle of fairness and preventing wrongdoers from benefiting from their own deceptive actions. Michigan personal injury law aims to provide remedies for those harmed by the negligence or misconduct of others. However, standard statutes of limitations are designed to bring finality to legal disputes and prevent stale claims. This particular provision, dealing with fraudulent concealment, serves as a crucial safeguard to ensure that justice is not thwarted when a liable party deliberately manipulates circumstances to hide their responsibility. It addresses the inherent unfairness of allowing a person to escape liability simply because they successfully concealed a claim, thereby protecting the rights of victims who, through no fault of their own, were prevented from timely discovering their cause of action or the identity of the person or entity accountable for their harm.
Real-World Example of MCL § 600.5855 – Fraudulent concealment; tolling
Consider a hypothetical scenario involving a surgical procedure. Sarah undergoes surgery, and unbeknownst to her, the surgeon, Dr. Lee, makes a critical error that causes a serious, long-term complication. Dr. Lee, realizing the mistake, intentionally falsifies medical records, omits critical information from Sarah’s follow-up appointments, and assures Sarah that her lingering pain is a normal, albeit prolonged, part of recovery, actively concealing the true cause.
Years pass, and the standard medical malpractice statute of limitations in Michigan (typically two years from the date of the act or omission, or six months from discovery, but no more than six years from the act) would normally expire. However, Sarah’s pain worsens, and she seeks a second opinion from a different specialist. This new doctor reviews Sarah’s original records, discovers the inconsistencies, and identifies Dr. Lee’s original surgical error and the subsequent concealment. Under MCL § 600.5855, even though the original statute of limitations has long passed, Sarah would have two years from the date she discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) Dr. Lee’s fraudulent concealment and the underlying medical malpractice claim to file her lawsuit. This statute allows her to seek justice despite the defendant’s deliberate efforts to hide the truth.
Related Statutes
MCL § 600.5855 is primarily related to and acts as an exception to Michigan’s general statutes of limitations. The most directly relevant statute in the context of personal injury is MCL § 600.5805 – Limitations on actions; period of limitations; causes of action; damages; product liability; asbestos exposure; medical malpractice. This statute sets the standard timeframes for bringing various types of claims, including:
- Personal Injury: Generally, three years for most personal injury claims.
- Medical Malpractice: Generally, two years from the date of the act or omission, or six months after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the claim, but not more than six years after the act (with some exceptions).
MCL § 600.5855 provides a mechanism to “toll” (pause or extend) these specified periods when there has been active, fraudulent concealment. Without the fraudulent concealment statute, a claim discovered after the expiration of the periods outlined in MCL § 600.5805 would be permanently barred, regardless of the defendant’s deceptive conduct. Thus, MCL § 600.5855 serves as a critical counterpoint to the finality provisions of general limitations periods.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 600.5855
Michigan courts have frequently interpreted and applied MCL § 600.5855, particularly in cases involving medical malpractice and other complex claims where information may be withheld. A significant case illustrating the application of this statute is Sills v. Oakland Gen. Hosp., 220 Mich. App. 303 (1996). In this medical malpractice case, the Michigan Court of Appeals clarified the elements required to establish fraudulent concealment under MCL § 600.5855. The court affirmed that to invoke the fraudulent concealment tolling provision, a plaintiff must show:
1. The defendant engaged in some “active misrepresentation” or “affirmative act” of concealment. Mere silence or the failure to disclose, without a duty to do so, is generally not enough.
2. The misrepresentation or act of concealment was intended to hide the existence of the claim or the identity of the liable party.
3. The plaintiff did not discover the existence of the claim or the identity of the liable party until after the period of limitation had run, and the plaintiff acted with due diligence in attempting to discover the facts.
This case emphasizes that the defendant’s concealment must be active and intentional, not merely passive. It sets a high bar for plaintiffs seeking to extend the statute of limitations based on this provision, requiring proof of specific actions taken to mislead or deceive.
- You can find more about this case by searching on Google Scholar: Sills v. Oakland Gen. Hosp. MCL 600.5855
Why MCL § 600.5855 Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
In Michigan personal injury cases, MCL § 600.5855 holds immense importance for both plaintiffs and defendants. For individuals who have suffered an injury, this statute can be a critical lifeline, offering a path to justice when a potential defendant has actively worked to prevent them from filing a timely lawsuit. It means that an injured party is not automatically out of luck if they only discover their claim or the responsible party years after the initial incident, provided that the delay was due to the defendant’s deliberate deceit. This provision empowers Michigan personal injury attorneys to pursue claims that would otherwise be barred by the standard statute of limitations, ensuring accountability for those who seek to evade liability through dishonest means.
From a defendant’s perspective, this statute underscores the imperative of transparency and honesty. While defendants typically rely on the statute of limitations as a powerful defense, engaging in fraudulent concealment can completely negate this protection. This puts a significant onus on defendants and their legal teams to meticulously review records and actions, as any evidence of active concealment could dramatically extend their exposure to a lawsuit. The “should have discovered” clause also introduces a factual dispute regarding the plaintiff’s diligence, often leading to complex litigation over when the plaintiff reasonably could have uncovered the truth. Ultimately, MCL § 600.5855 serves as a vital tool for ensuring that the legal system provides a remedy for all victims, even those whose claims were intentionally hidden from their knowledge.