Civil procedure: statute of limitations; civil actions for criminal sexual conduct; modify period of limitations. Amends sec. 5805 of 1961 PA 236 (MCL 600.5805). TIE BAR WITH: SB 259'25, SB 257'25
SB 258 amends Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act to revise the statute of limitations for certain civil actions, with the main substantive change focused on civil claims arising from criminal sexual conduct. Under the bill, a person would have 10 years to bring an action to recover damages sustained because of criminal sexual conduct, and the bill clarifies that such a civil action does not depend on whether there was a criminal prosecution, or whether any prosecution ended in a conviction or adjudication.
The bill also restates and preserves the existing limitations periods for a range of other civil claims, including 3 years for most personal injury and property damage claims, 2 years for assault, battery, false imprisonment, malpractice, and certain official misconduct claims, 5 years for some domestic violence and dating-relationship assault and battery claims, 1 year for libel or slander, and 3 years for products liability. It also keeps the rule that professional negligence claims against licensed architects, engineers, and surveyors are treated as malpractice claims, and it maintains the relationship between these limitation periods and applicable statutes of repose.
The bill is tied to two companion measures, SB 257 and SB 259, and it would not take effect unless all three bills are enacted. That tie-bar suggests the package is intended to work together as a broader civil-justice or sexual-assault-related reform package rather than as a standalone change.
The overall sentiment appears favorable. The bill was reported favorably out of committee without amendment and then passed the Senate on third reading by a 25-9 vote, indicating majority support but not unanimity. The vote pattern suggests the proposal was broadly accepted, though a meaningful minority had reservations.
The main point of contention is likely the expansion or clarification of the time window for civil lawsuits based on criminal sexual conduct, especially the 10-year limitations period and the fact that a civil case may proceed without a prior criminal conviction. Supporters likely view this as improving access to civil remedies for survivors, while opponents may be concerned about extended liability exposure, stale claims, and litigation based on allegations not tested in criminal court.
The bill would amend MCL 600.5805 in Michigan’s Revised Judicature Act by changing the limitations framework for civil actions based on criminal sexual conduct and by clarifying that those civil claims are not dependent on a criminal conviction or adjudication. It would affect survivors bringing civil damages claims, defendants in those actions, and courts applying the statute of limitations, while leaving most other limitation periods in the section unchanged. The bill is also contingent on enactment of SB 257 and SB 259, so its legal effect depends on passage of the companion package.
Committee and floor action suggest generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. It was reported out of committee unanimously in the available vote and then passed the Senate by a solid margin, indicating support for the policy change. The absence of recorded transcript debate limits insight into detailed arguments, but the vote split shows some opposition remained.
The likely controversy centers on the bill’s extension and clarification of the civil statute of limitations for claims arising from criminal sexual conduct. Supporters are likely focused on survivor access to justice and the practical difficulty of filing civil claims within shorter deadlines, especially when criminal proceedings are delayed or do not result in conviction. Opponents are likely concerned about increased exposure to lawsuits, evidentiary problems with older claims, and the fairness of allowing civil actions to proceed without a criminal conviction. The tie-bar to SB 257 and SB 259 may also have been a point of strategic or policy concern, since the bill cannot take effect alone.