HB 6049 amends Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act section on statutes of limitation for civil actions involving personal injury, assault, battery, false imprisonment, malpractice, libel and slander, products liability, and related claims. The bill’s text primarily updates cross-references and wording in MCL 600.5805, including clarifying that the 10-year limitations period for damages arising from criminal sexual conduct is governed by section 5851b. It also revises definitions and terminology, such as the definition of “dating relationship,” and makes conforming language changes throughout the section.
The bill does not create a wholly new cause of action or a new limitations framework; rather, it modernizes and harmonizes existing limitation rules with other parts of Michigan law. It preserves the existing structure of limitation periods for different types of claims, including special rules for assault and battery involving spouses, former spouses, co-parents, household members, and dating partners, as well as the general rules for malpractice, products liability, and defamation. The bill is also contingent on enactment of related Senate bills, indicating it is part of a broader legislative package.
HB 6049 would amend MCL 600.5805 in the Revised Judicature Act, affecting the time limits within which plaintiffs may file civil lawsuits for specified injuries and torts. Its main legal effect is to update statutory language and cross-references, especially regarding criminal sexual conduct claims and related definitions, while leaving most limitation periods intact. The bill would affect potential plaintiffs, defendants, insurers, and courts by clarifying which limitation periods apply to certain personal injury and tort actions.
No committee testimony or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text, the measure appears technical and conforming in nature, which often suggests a neutral or routine legislative posture rather than a controversial policy change. The contingent enactment clause also suggests it is part of a coordinated package rather than a standalone flashpoint.
The most notable point of potential contention is the bill’s treatment of civil claims arising from criminal sexual conduct and the associated cross-reference to section 5851b, because limitations periods for abuse-related claims can affect survivors’ ability to seek relief. Another possible area of concern is the bill’s special limitation rules for assault and battery involving intimate or household relationships, which may draw attention from advocates focused on domestic violence and survivor access to courts. However, no specific objections or competing viewpoints are documented in the provided discussion materials.