HB 6047 would amend Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act to change the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits brought by minors who were victims of criminal sexual conduct. Under the bill, such a victim could sue until the later of: 10 years after the claim accrues, age 42, or 7 years after the victim discovers, or reasonably should have discovered, both the injury and its connection to the abuse. The bill also preserves the rule that a criminal conviction is not required before a civil case may be filed, and it keeps in place the provision allowing an action to be brought without any time limit when the abuse led to a criminal prosecution and conviction for criminal sexual conduct.
The bill also creates a revival window for certain previously time-barred claims involving abuse that occurred after December 31, 1996 and before two years before the bill’s effective date, but only where the alleged offender was convicted under Michigan’s criminal sexual conduct law and admitted to abusing a victim while acting as a physician or engaging in unethical or medically unacceptable treatment or examination. Those revived claims would have to be filed within a limited period after the effective date. In addition, the bill caps damages for revived claims at $1.5 million per claimant per defendant for each incident or occurrence.
In practical terms, the bill would expand civil remedies for survivors of childhood sexual abuse and extend the time available to bring suit, while also reopening a narrow category of older claims. It would amend MCL 600.5851b and interact with existing limitation periods in the Revised Judicature Act, particularly the general rules in sections 5805 and 5851. The bill defines criminal sexual conduct by reference to several provisions of the Michigan Penal Code covering different degrees and forms of sexual assault.
Because no committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or formal support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the bill appears aimed at strengthening survivor access to civil court and addressing delayed discovery of abuse-related injuries, while also limiting exposure through a damages cap and a narrowly tailored revival provision. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the expanded filing window, the revival of stale claims, and the $1.5 million cap on revived cases, which may draw different reactions from survivor advocates, defendants, insurers, and medical professionals.
HB 6047 would amend Michigan Compiled Laws 600.5851b to extend and clarify the civil statute of limitations for minors who were victims of criminal sexual conduct, including a later filing deadline tied to age 42 and a 7-year discovery rule. It would also preserve unlimited filing in cases that resulted in a criminal conviction, create a limited revival period for certain previously barred claims involving convicted physician-abusers, and impose a $1.5 million damages cap on revived claims. The bill would affect survivors of sexual abuse, alleged perpetrators, insurers, and potentially medical providers, and it would operate alongside existing limitation provisions in the Revised Judicature Act and Michigan Penal Code sexual offense statutes.
The bill’s apparent policy direction is favorable to survivors of childhood sexual abuse, with the text designed to expand access to civil remedies and account for delayed discovery of harm. At the same time, the inclusion of a narrow revival window and a damages cap suggests an effort to balance survivor access with limits on retroactive liability. No committee testimony or votes were provided, so the materials do not show recorded support or opposition, but the structure of the bill indicates likely broad sympathy for survivors alongside concern from defendants and liability-focused stakeholders.
The most likely points of contention are the extended statute of limitations, the revival of otherwise time-barred claims, and the special treatment of claims involving convicted physicians who admitted coercive or unethical conduct. Supporters would likely emphasize survivor access to justice, while opponents may object to reopening old claims, the retroactive effect on defendants, and the potential litigation and insurance costs. The $1.5 million cap may also be debated, with some viewing it as a necessary limit on exposure and others as an insufficient remedy for serious abuse.