Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

In <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20150303_C312450_60_312450.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener"><em>Genesee Cnty. Drain Comm’r v. Genesee Cnty.</em>, No. 312450</a>, the Court of Appeals held that there is no statutory or judicially-created intentional tort exception to the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA), and therefore plaintiffs’ intentional tort claims are barred by the GTLA in this case because the governmental defendant administered group health insurance&nbsp;for&nbsp;public employees, which is a basic governmental function.

contentpilot/introduction

Genesee County’s Drain Commissioner contracted with defendant Genesee County to purchase group health insurance for its employees. The County was responsible for administering the plan for the parties under the agreement. In 2007, the Drain Commissioner learned that Genesee County received significant refunds from its insurance agency for premium overpayments made by employees of the group plan. Instead of returning the refunds, Genesee County deposited the money into its general fund. The Drain Commissioner demanded that the county pay back the reimbursements, but the county’s board of commissioners refused.

core/paragraph

The Drain Commissioner and several covered employees alleged that the county committed intentional torts, including fraud and conversion.&nbsp; The county moved for summary disposition on the basis that it is immune from their claims under the GTLA. The Act protects governmental entities from tort liability so long as the agency is engaged in the discharge of a governmental function. MCL 691.1407. The GTLA is subject to very limited statutory exceptions. Plaintiffs assert that since the torts were intentional, the county was not engaged in the discharge of a governmental function and therefore the county is not immune from liability.

The Court of Appeals held that the county is immune from tort liability because the administration of health benefits to public employees is a governmental function. The court explained that the intentional torts committed were specific acts that occurred as part of the “general activity” of its governmental function. The court also reasoned that if it held otherwise, all intentional tort claims against a governmental agency would become a judicially-created exception to the GTLA, which is contrary to what the legislature intended. The court stated that the legislature had the authority to provide an intentional tort exception to this Act and they did not. Therefore, the Court of Appeals held that plaintiffs are barred from asserting intentional tort claims in this case.&nbsp; The Court also held that plaintiffs did not have a strong enough claim for equitable estoppel to negate the statute of limitations and may not seek breach of contract damages that accrued before October 24, 2005.

Partner

Jason L. Byrne

Labor and Employment

COA determines that there is no intentional tort exception to the Governmental Tort Liability Act

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000. 

COA determines that there is no intentional tort exception to the Governmental Tort Liability Act

professionals