Michigan
Michigan Punitive Damages Laws: Exemplary Damages Rules (2026)
Independently fact-checked against primary sources (last audited October 18, 2026). · 26 primary sources cited on this page. How we verify our legal content
Michigan does not allow punitive damages in a civil case unless a statute expressly authorizes them. The Michigan Supreme Court put the rule this way in Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749 (2004): "punitive damages are available in Michigan only when expressly authorized by the Legislature." What Michigan courts call "exemplary damages" at common law are not punishment; they compensate a plaintiff for injured feelings caused by malicious or willful and wanton conduct (Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 409 Mich. 401 (1980)).
Because there is no general punitive damages remedy, Michigan has no general cap and no general rule sending part of an award to the state. Each statute that authorizes punitive or exemplary damages sets its own terms, from actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500 total under the Open Meetings Act to punitive damages with no dollar limit in the text of the eavesdropping statute. For how other states compare, see punitive damages laws by state.
Information last verified on 2026-10-18. This article has not been reviewed by a licensed lawyer.
Jurisdiction scope: This article covers Michigan state law on punitive and exemplary damages in civil cases: the rule stated by the Michigan Supreme Court, the common-law exemplary damages doctrine, and the Michigan Compiled Laws sections named below. It does not cover compensatory or noneconomic damages caps generally, wrongful-death procedure, deadlines and beneficiaries (see Michigan wrongful death law), federal claims, or every Michigan statute that authorizes exemplary, punitive or multiplied damages for a particular claim beyond those named here.
Does Michigan allow punitive damages?
Only where a statute says so. In Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749 (2004), the Michigan Supreme Court cautioned that "courts must be mindful of the fact that punitive damages are available in Michigan only when expressly authorized by the Legislature."
The Court had described the same rule five years earlier. In Rafferty v. Markovitz, 461 Mich. 265 (1999), it recalled: "We further observed that only compensatory damages generally are available in Michigan, and that punitive sanctions may not be imposed."
In Gilbert itself, a sexual-harassment case, the Court noted that "the Civil Rights Act does not authorize punitive damages."
Damages in an ordinary negligence case in Michigan are therefore compensatory. Punishment is available only where a statute for that particular claim authorizes punitive damages.
Arbitration follows the same rule. Under the Uniform Arbitration Act, "an arbitrator may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim" (MCL 691.1701(1)).
Exemplary damages in Michigan are compensation, not punishment
Michigan courts do award "exemplary damages" without a statute, but they mean something different from punitive damages in most states. In Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 409 Mich. 401 (1980), the Michigan Supreme Court stated:
"In Michigan, exemplary damages are recoverable as compensation to the plaintiff, not as punishment of the defendant."
The Court explained the reasoning: "The theory of these cases is that the reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct both intensifies the injury and justifies the award of exemplary damages as compensation for the harm done the plaintiff's feelings."
Breach of contract. In Kewin, the Court held that, "absent allegation and proof of tortious conduct existing independent of the breach," exemplary damages "may not be awarded in common-law actions brought for breach of a commercial contract."
What conduct is required. In Veselenak v. Smith, 414 Mich. 567 (1982), the Michigan Supreme Court described the conduct as a voluntary act that is malicious, or so willful and wanton as to demonstrate a reckless disregard of the plaintiff's rights. It added: "Due to the required mental element, negligence is not sufficient to justify an award of exemplary damages."
No double recovery. Because exemplary damages compensate injured feelings, they cannot duplicate ordinary damages for mental distress awarded for the same harm (Veselenak).
Burden of proof. No general Michigan statute defines the conduct required for exemplary damages or sets a burden of proof for them; the standard comes from these decisions.
Statutes that authorize punitive or exemplary damages
The Legislature has authorized punitive or exemplary damages claim by claim, and each statute sets its own measure. These are the provisions a reader is most likely to meet:
| Claim | What the statute allows | Statute |
|---|---|---|
| Eavesdropping | Injunction, all actual damages, and "punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury"; no dollar limit stated | MCL 750.539h |
| Consumer Protection Act, violation of section 3l | Except in a class action, actual damages or $5,000, whichever is greater, plus reasonable attorney fees; the court "may, in its discretion, award punitive damages" | MCL 445.911(3) |
| Freedom of Information Act, arbitrary and capricious refusal or delay | $1,000 in punitive damages to the requester, in addition to actual or compensatory damages, assessed against the public body and not an individual | MCL 15.240(7) |
| Freedom of Information Act, arbitrary and capricious excessive fee | The court may award $500 in punitive damages to the requester, in addition to actual or compensatory damages, plus a $500 civil fine to the state general fund; assessed against the public body, not an individual | MCL 15.240a(7) |
| Open Meetings Act, intentional violation by a public official | Personal liability for actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500 total, plus court costs and actual attorney fees | MCL 15.273(1) |
| Dram shop judgment not paid by the insurer within 90 days | Punitive damages of $1,000, in addition to the judgment and interest | MCL 436.1809 |
| Drug Dealer Liability Act | Economic, noneconomic and exemplary damages, plus attorney fees and costs; no dollar limit stated | MCL 691.1610(1) |
| Stalking victim's civil action | Exemplary damages, costs and reasonable attorney fees | MCL 600.2954(1) |
| Motion picture recording violation | Exemplary damages of not more than $1,000, or not more than $50,000 for commercial advantage or financial gain | MCL 600.2953a(1) |
| Telecommunications access devices | Exemplary damages of not more than $1,000, or not more than $50,000 for commercial advantage or financial gain | MCL 600.2962a(2) |
| Wrongful encumbrance of property | Exemplary damages | MCL 600.2907a(1)(c) |
| Bad-faith patent infringement demand letters (Bad-Faith Patent Infringement Claims Act) | Exemplary damages "in an amount equal to 3 times the actual damages" for a target or affiliated person who prevails | MCL 446.169(2)(d) |
| Credit services organization violation (Credit Services Protection Act) | Actual damages of not less than the amount the buyer paid, attorney fees and costs, and "any punitive damages that it considers proper"; no dollar limit stated | MCL 445.1824(1)(c) |
| Unpaid wages, by department order | Exemplary damages of not more than twice the wages and fringe benefits due, if the violation is flagrant or repeated | MCL 408.488(2) |
| Environmental response, failure to comply with an administrative order | Exemplary damages of at least the state's response costs and not more than 3 times those costs | MCL 324.20119(4)(b) |
Eavesdropping. The civil remedy in Michigan's eavesdropping law provides that "any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies," including "(c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury" (MCL 750.539h).
Consumer Protection Act. Punitive damages are tied to section 3l. An ordinary violation allows a person who suffers loss to "recover actual damages or $250.00, whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees" (MCL 445.911(2)). Only an individual action for a violation of section 3l adds the court's discretion to award punitive damages (445.911(3)).
Freedom of Information Act. Where a court finds that a public body "arbitrarily and capriciously violated this act by refusal or delay," the court "shall award, in addition to any actual or compensatory damages, punitive damages in the amount of $1,000.00 to the person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record," and the damages "shall not be assessed against an individual" (MCL 15.240(7)).
Environmental response. The exemplary damages in Part 201 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act are a state enforcement remedy. Liability for each release generally may not exceed response costs, fines and exemplary damages plus $50,000,000 in natural resource damages, but that limit does not apply where the release "was the result of willful misconduct or gross negligence of the party" or where "the primary cause of the release or threat of release was a knowing violation of applicable safety, construction, or operating standards or regulations" (MCL 324.20131(1)-(2)). Separately, a court may impose "a civil fine of not more than $25,000.00 for each day of violation of a judicial order or an administrative order issued pursuant to section 20119, including exemplary damages pursuant to section 20119" (MCL 324.20137(1)(g)).
Multiplied damages are a separate remedy. Some statutes multiply damages without calling them punitive or exemplary. For example, a person damaged by conversion or by dealing in stolen property "may recover 3 times the amount of actual damages sustained, plus costs and reasonable attorney fees" (MCL 600.2919a(1)). The Michigan Court of Appeals has held, following its earlier decision in Aroma Wines & Equipment, Inc. v. Columbian Distribution Services, Inc. (2013), that "the award of damages under MCL 600.2919a falls under the discretion of the trial court" (Hoffman Machinery Corp. v. Reid Machinery Inc., No. 368468 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2025)), and that the statute "does not alter the common-law measure of damages for conversion aside from authorizing a multiplied recovery" (Marko Law, PLLC v. Salling, No. 371459 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2025)).
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Michigan?
There is no general cap, because there is no general punitive damages statute to cap. Each statute that authorizes punitive or exemplary damages sets its own amount or leaves it open: a fixed $1,000 under the Freedom of Information Act for an arbitrary and capricious refusal or delay and under the dram shop insurer provision, a discretionary $500 under the Freedom of Information Act for an arbitrary and capricious excessive fee, not more than $500 total (actual and exemplary combined) under the Open Meetings Act, $1,000 or $50,000 ceilings in the motion picture recording and telecommunications access device statutes, 3 times actual damages for bad-faith patent infringement demand letters, twice the wages and fringe benefits due under a wage order, and no stated limit under the eavesdropping statute, the Drug Dealer Liability Act or the Credit Services Protection Act.
Common-law exemplary damages are compensatory, so they are measured as compensation for the injury to the plaintiff's feelings rather than against a punitive ratio or ceiling.
Product liability caps are different. Michigan's product liability caps on noneconomic damages are not punitive damages caps. Under MCL 600.2949a, sections 2946(4), 2946a, 2947(1) to (4) and 2948(2) do not apply if the court determines that the defendant "had actual knowledge that the product was defective and that there was a substantial likelihood that the defect would cause the injury that is the basis of the action, and the defendant willfully disregarded that knowledge."
Where a Michigan statute does authorize punitive damages, the U.S. Supreme Court's due-process limits on the size of punitive awards also apply; the punitive damages hub explains them.
Does Michigan take a share of the award?
No general Michigan statute sends any part of an exemplary or punitive award to the state or to a fund. The Freedom of Information Act is the closest example, and it works differently: the court orders the public body "to pay a civil fine of $1,000.00, which shall be deposited into the general fund of the state treasury," and separately awards $1,000 in punitive damages to the requester (MCL 15.240(7)). The fine is not a share of the requester's award. The same pattern applies to an arbitrary and capricious excessive fee: a $500 civil fine deposited in the general fund, and a discretionary $500 in punitive damages to the person seeking the fee reduction (MCL 15.240a(7)).
Wrongful death and survival claims
A death claim in Michigan runs through the Wrongful Death Act. MCL 600.2921 provides: "All actions and claims survive death. Actions on claims for injuries which result in death shall not be prosecuted after the death of the injured person except pursuant to the next section."
The damages clause of the Wrongful Death Act, MCL 600.2922(6), lets the court or jury award damages that are "fair and equitable, under all the circumstances," including medical, hospital, funeral and burial expenses for which the estate is liable, reasonable compensation for the deceased's conscious pain and suffering between injury and death, and "damages for the loss of financial support and the loss of the society and companionship of the deceased." It does not mention punitive or exemplary damages.
The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that exemplary damages are not available in a death case. In Fellows v. Superior Products Co., 201 Mich. App. 155 (1993), the court wrote: "We begin by noting that, contrary to plaintiff's position on cross appeal, exemplary damages are not recoverable in a wrongful death action." In Thorn v. Mercy Memorial Hospital Corp., 281 Mich. App. 644 (2008), the Court of Appeals agreed that "defendants are correct regarding the preclusion of exemplary damages under the WDA," resting that conclusion on the rule that exemplary damages "will not be awarded to compensate a purely pecuniary grievance." The court added that exemplary damages "are not precluded on the basis that the wording of the statute fails to specifically reference them."
Who may bring a death claim, and the deadlines, are on the Michigan wrongful death page.
Statutes that limit exemplary and punitive damages
Libel. "Exemplary and punitive damages shall not be recovered in actions for libel unless the plaintiff, before instituting his or her action, gives notice to the defendant to publish a retraction and allows a reasonable time to do so" (MCL 600.2911(2)(b)). The same section otherwise limits a libel or slander plaintiff to actual damages (MCL 600.2911(2)(a)), and where a private individual's claim rests on a falsehood published negligently, "recovery under this provision shall be limited to economic damages including attorney fees" (MCL 600.2911(7)). The rest of a libel or slander claim is covered on the Michigan defamation laws page.
Merchants and libraries detaining a suspected shoplifter. In a claim against a merchant, library, agent or independent contractor arising from the detention of a person suspected of larceny, where the defendant had probable cause for believing and did believe the plaintiff committed it, "damages for or resulting from mental anguish or punitive, exemplary, or aggravated damages shall not be allowed a plaintiff, unless it is proved that" the defendant "used unreasonable force, detained the plaintiff an unreasonable length of time, acted with unreasonable disregard of the plaintiff's rights or sensibilities, or acted with intent to injure the plaintiff" (MCL 600.2917(1)).
Insurer insolvency. The life and health insurance guaranty association chapter excludes "an award of exemplary or punitive damages or statutory interest and claims related to bad faith in the payment of claims, and attorney fees and costs" from the claims the association covers (MCL 500.7704).
Does insurance pay exemplary or punitive damages in Michigan?
One statute answers the question for its own claims. Under the Drug Dealer Liability Act, "a third party shall not pay damages awarded under this act, or provide a defense or money for a defense, on behalf of an insured under a contract of insurance or indemnification" (MCL 691.1610(2)). For other claims, this article states no general Michigan rule on insuring exemplary or punitive damages.
Michigan punitive damages at a glance
| Question | Michigan rule | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Are punitive damages generally available? | No; only when a statute expressly authorizes them | Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler (Mich. 2004) |
| Common-law exemplary damages | Compensation for injured feelings, not punishment | Kewin (Mich. 1980) |
| Breach of a commercial contract | Exemplary damages not awarded absent tortious conduct independent of the breach | Kewin (Mich. 1980) |
| Civil Rights Act claims | Punitive damages not authorized | Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler (Mich. 2004) |
| Conduct required for exemplary damages | Malicious, or willful and wanton, intentional conduct; negligence is not sufficient | Veselenak v. Smith (Mich. 1982) |
| Burden of proof | No general statute sets one | Case law standard only |
| General cap | None; statutes that authorize punitive or exemplary damages set their own amounts | For example MCL 15.240(7), 15.273(1), 446.169(2)(d), 600.2953a(1) |
| State share | No general split; the FOIA civil fines to the state general fund ($1,000 for refusal or delay, $500 for an excessive fee) are separate fines | MCL 15.240(7), 15.240a(7) |
| Wrongful death | Exemplary damages not recoverable in a wrongful death action | Fellows (Mich. App. 1993); Thorn (Mich. App. 2008) |
| Libel | Barred unless a retraction was demanded first; private-individual negligence claims limited to economic damages | MCL 600.2911(2)(b), (7) |
| Shoplifting detention | Where the merchant had probable cause, barred unless unreasonable force, unreasonable detention, unreasonable disregard of rights or sensibilities, or intent to injure is proved | MCL 600.2917(1) |
| Arbitration | Arbitrator may award them only if authorized by law in a civil action on the same claim | MCL 691.1701(1) |
| Insurance | Barred for Drug Dealer Liability Act awards | MCL 691.1610(2) |
Recent changes
Michigan's punitive damages rule has rested on Supreme Court case law for decades, and no general punitive damages statute has been enacted. Among the statutes on this page, the most recent amendments are the 2020 amendment to the Consumer Protection Act remedies section (2020 PA 296, effective April 1, 2021) and the 2014 amendment to the Freedom of Information Act enforcement section (2014 PA 563, effective July 1, 2015).
In product liability, 2023 PA 285 amended MCL 600.2946 effective February 13, 2024. As amended, section 2946(4) provides a rebuttable presumption that the manufacturer or seller is not liable if the aspect of the product that allegedly caused the harm complied with relevant federal or state statutory standards or agency regulations or standards when the product was sold or delivered to the initial purchaser or user. That change concerns liability, not punitive damages.
Related pages
- Punitive damages laws by state
- Michigan wrongful death law
- Michigan defamation laws
- Ohio punitive damages laws
This article provides general legal information about Michigan law on punitive and exemplary damages as of 2026-10-18. It is not legal advice. For advice about a specific situation, contact a lawyer licensed in Michigan.
Last updated: 2026-10-18.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Michigan allow punitive damages?
Only where a statute expressly authorizes them. The Michigan Supreme Court said in Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp. (2004) that punitive damages are available in Michigan only when expressly authorized by the Legislature; examples include the eavesdropping statute (MCL 750.539h) and the Freedom of Information Act (MCL 15.240(7)).
What are exemplary damages in Michigan?
At common law, exemplary damages compensate the plaintiff for injured feelings caused by malicious or willful and wanton conduct; they are not punishment (Kewin, 1980). Negligence is not sufficient (Veselenak v. Smith, 1982), and they cannot duplicate ordinary mental-distress damages for the same harm.
Is there a cap on punitive damages in Michigan?
No general cap, because there is no general punitive damages statute. Each statute that authorizes punitive or exemplary damages sets its own terms, such as a fixed $1,000 under the Freedom of Information Act for an arbitrary and capricious refusal or delay, not more than $500 total in actual and exemplary damages under the Open Meetings Act, or no stated limit under the eavesdropping statute.
Are punitive damages available in a Michigan wrongful death case?
The Michigan Court of Appeals has held that exemplary damages are not recoverable in a wrongful death action (Fellows v. Superior Products Co., 1993), and Thorn v. Mercy Memorial Hospital Corp. (2008) agreed. Thorn explained that the bar rests not on the statute's wording but on the rule that exemplary damages will not be awarded to compensate a purely pecuniary grievance.
Are punitive damages available for eavesdropping in Michigan?
Yes. MCL 750.539h gives the parties to a conversation subjected to unlawful eavesdropping an injunction, all actual damages, and punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury; the section states no dollar limit.
Does Michigan take part of a punitive damages award?
No general Michigan statute sends part of a punitive or exemplary award to the state. Under the Freedom of Information Act, a $1,000 civil fine paid into the state general fund is ordered separately from the $1,000 in punitive damages awarded to the requester (MCL 15.240(7)); an arbitrary and capricious excessive fee carries a separate $500 fine to the general fund (MCL 15.240a(7)).
Are punitive damages available for a FOIA violation in Michigan?
Yes. If a court finds that a public body arbitrarily and capriciously refused or delayed disclosure, MCL 15.240(7) requires an award of $1,000 in punitive damages to the requester, in addition to any actual or compensatory damages, assessed against the public body rather than an individual. For an arbitrary and capricious excessive fee, the court may award $500 in punitive damages (MCL 15.240a(7)).
Are punitive damages available in a Michigan libel case?
MCL 600.2911(2)(b) bars exemplary and punitive damages for libel unless the plaintiff, before filing suit, gave the defendant notice to publish a retraction and a reasonable time to do so. The section also limits a private individual's recovery for a negligently published falsehood to economic damages, including attorney fees (MCL 600.2911(7)).
Updates
Independently fact-checked against the cited primary sources
The Law Behind This Article
This article rests on the statutory provisions below, held in our own legal record and retrieved from the official source. Tap a section to read the operative text.
Michigan Compiled Laws
§ 600.2922Death by wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another; liability; action by personal representative; limitation; notice; approval or rejection of proposed settlement; award and distribution of damages; presentation of claim for damages; advising attorney for personal representative of material facts; applicability of MCL 700.3924 to distribution of proceedsIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Whenever the death of a person, injuries resulting in death, or death as described in section 2922a shall be caused by wrongful act, neglect, or fault of another, and the act, neglect, or fault is such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the party injured to maintain an action and recover damages, the person who or the corporation that would have been liable, if death had not ensued, shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured or death as described in section 2922a, and although the death was caused under circumstances that constitute a felony. (2) Every action under this section shall be brought by, and in the name of, the personal representative of the estate of the deceased. Within 30 days after the commencement of an action, the personal representative shall serve a copy of the complaint and notice as prescribed in subsection (4) upon the person or persons who may be entitled to damages under subsection (3) in the manner and method provided in the rules applicable to probate court proceedings.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-09-06 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 297 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Plumley v. Klein (Michigan Supreme Court 1972, 388 Mich. 1)“…e of the deceased mother under the wrongful death act *4 (MCLA 600.2922; MSA 27A.2922) for ordinary negligence.…”
- Berger v. Weber (Michigan Supreme Court 1981, 411 Mich. 1)“…ent who is negligently killed under the wrongful death act, MCL 600.2922; MSA 27A.2922. They may also recover fo…”
- in Re Bradley Estate (Michigan Supreme Court 2013, 494 Mich. 367)“…e damages set forth in the Michigan Wrongful Death Statute, MCL 600.2922, et seq.” 2 Respondent moved for sum…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Wrongful Death Laws (2026): Deadlines
§ 750.539hCivil remediesIn forcecited in 23 of our articles
Any parties to any conversation upon which eavesdropping is practiced contrary to this act shall be entitled to the following civil remedies: (a) An injunction by a court of record prohibiting further eavesdropping. (b) All actual damages against the person who eavesdrops. (c) Punitive damages as determined by the court or by a jury.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 13 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- McAuley v. General Motors Corp. (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 513)“…MSA 4.1801(10)(7), MCL 600.2911(2)(b); MSA 27A.2911(2)(b), MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c). In additio…”
- Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1988, 431 Mich. 26)“…violation); MCL 600.2911; MSA 27A.2911 (libel or slander); MCL 750.539h; MSA 28.807(8) (eavesdropping, allowing…”
- Anzaldua v. Band (Michigan Supreme Court 1998, 457 Mich. 530)“…this act, the court or jury who shall try the same); and MCL 750.539h(c); MSA 28.807(8)(c) (any party to a co…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Smart Glasses Recording Laws (2026), Michigan Audio Recording Laws: Consent Rules, Statutes, and Penalties (2026), Michigan Landlord-Tenant Recording Laws: Surveillance, Privacy, and Tenant Rights (2026)
§ 15.240Options by requesting person; appeal; actions by public body; receipt of written appeal; judicial review; civil action; venue; de novo proceeding; burden of proof; private view of public record; contempt; assignment of action or appeal for hearing, trial, or argument; attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements; assessment of award; damagesIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) If a public body makes a final determination to deny all or a portion of a request, the requesting person may do 1 of the following at his or her option: (a) Submit to the head of the public body a written appeal that specifically states the word "appeal" and identifies the reason or reasons for reversal of the denial. (b) Commence a civil action in the circuit court, or if the decision of a state public body is at issue, the court of claims, to compel the public body's disclosure of the public records within 180 days after a public body's final determination to deny a request. (2) Within 10 business days after receiving a written appeal pursuant to subsection (1)(a), the head of a public body shall do 1 of the following: (a) Reverse the disclosure denial. (b) Issue a written notice to the requesting person upholding the disclosure denial. (c) Reverse the disclosure denial in part and issue a written notice to the requesting person upholding the disclosure denial in part. (d) Under unusual circumstances, issue a notice extending for not more than 10 business days the period during which the head of the public body shall respond to the written appeal.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 174 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Coblentz v. City of Novi (Michigan Supreme Court 2006, 475 Mich. 558)“…ncy bears the burden of proving that an exemption applies. MCL 15.240(4). In this case, defendant did…”
- Herald Co. v. Eastern Michigan University Board of Regents (Michigan Supreme Court 2006, 475 Mich. 463)“…the burden to prove that its denial comports with the law. MCL 15.240(4). In this case, defendant is the go…”
- Federated Publications, Inc v. City of Lansing (Michigan Supreme Court 2002, 467 Mich. 98)“…clearly erroneous standard. Second, we hold that MCL 15.240(4) of the FOIA specifically places th…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Freedom of Information Act: 5 Business Days, Fees, and How to Appeal, Public Records Laws by State: FOIA Guide for All 50 States (2026)
§ 600.2911Action for libel or slanderIn forcecited in 3 of our articles
(1) Words imputing a lack of chastity to any female or male are actionable in themselves and subject the person who uttered or published them to a civil action for the slander in the same manner as the uttering or publishing of words imputing the commission of a criminal offense. (2)(a) Except as provided in subdivision (b), in actions based on libel or slander the plaintiff is entitled to recover only for the actual damages which he or she has suffered in respect to his or her property, business, trade, profession, occupation, or feelings. (b) Exemplary and punitive damages shall not be recovered in actions for libel unless the plaintiff, before instituting his or her action, gives notice to the defendant to publish a retraction and allows a reasonable time to do so, and proof of the publication or correction shall be admissible in evidence under a denial on the question of the good faith of the defendant, and in mitigation and reduction of exemplary or punitive damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-08-27 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 92 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2025
In the courts (editorial summary, independently checked):Kefgen v. Davidson (2000) read MCL 600.2911(6) as codifying the clear-and-convincing actual-malice proof required of public-official and public-figure plaintiffs. Rouch v. Enquirer & News of Battle Creek (1986) held the fair-report privilege in subsection (3) did not reach an arrest without judicial action; it was broadened in 1988.
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Kenneth Henes Special Projects Procurement, Marketing & Consulting Corp. v. Continental Biomass Industries, Inc. (Michigan Supreme Court 2003, 468 Mich. 109)“…lary and punitive damages under the Michigan libel statute, MCL 600.2911(2)(b), resulted in plaintiff being comp…”
- Rouch v. Enquirer & News (Michigan Supreme Court 1992, 440 Mich. 238)“…igan's statutory `public and official proceedings' statute, MCL 600.2911(3); MSA 27A.2911(3), and the viability…”
- Kefgen v. Davidson (Michigan Court of Appeals 2000, 241 Mich. App. 611)✓Parents said a school superintendent was fired for misappropriating funds and lied to the school board. Because he was a public figure, MCL 600.2911(6) required clear and convincing proof of knowing or reckless falsity, and finding none the court affirmed summary disposition.
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Defamation Laws: Libel & Slander (2026)
§ 600.2917Liability of library, merchant, agent, or independent contractor for conduct involving person suspected of larceny of goods or library materials, or of violating MCL 750.356c or MCL 750.356d; definitionsIn force
(1) In a civil action against a library or merchant, an agent of the library or merchant, or an independent contractor providing security for the library or merchant for false imprisonment, unlawful arrest, assault, battery, libel, or slander, if the claim arises out of conduct involving a person suspected of removing or of attempting to remove, without right or permission, goods held for sale in a store from the store or library materials from a library, or of violating section 356c or 356d of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.356c and 750.356d of the Michigan Compiled Laws, and if the merchant, library, agent, or independent contractor had probable cause for believing and did believe that the plaintiff had committed or aided or abetted in the larceny of goods held for sale in the store, or of library materials, or in the violation of section 356c or 356d of Act No.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 691.1701Remedies; fees and expenses of arbitration proceedingIn force
(1) An arbitrator may award punitive damages or other exemplary relief if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim and the evidence produced at the hearing justifies the award under the legal standards otherwise applicable to the claim. (2) An arbitrator may award reasonable attorney fees and other reasonable expenses of arbitration if such an award is authorized by law in a civil action involving the same claim or by the agreement of the parties to the arbitration proceeding. (3) As to all remedies other than those authorized by subsections (1) and (2), an arbitrator may order remedies that the arbitrator considers just and appropriate under the circumstances of the arbitration proceeding. The fact that such a remedy could not or would not be granted by the court is not a ground for refusing to confirm an award under section 22 or for vacating an award under section 23. (4) An arbitrator's expenses and fees, and other expenses, shall be paid as provided in the award.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 445.911Action by person for declaratory judgment, injunction, or actual damages; class action by person for actual damages; order; hearing; receiver; sequestration of assets; cost of notice; limitationsIn forcecited in 4 of our articles
(1) Whether or not a person seeks damages or has an adequate remedy at law, a person may bring an action to do either or both of the following: (a) Obtain a declaratory judgment that a method, act, or practice is unlawful under section 3. (b) Enjoin in accordance with the principles of equity a person who is engaging or is about to engage in a method, act, or practice that is unlawful under section 3. (2) Except in a class action or as otherwise provided in subsection (3), a person who suffers loss as a result of a violation of this act may bring an action to recover actual damages or $250.00, whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees. (3) Except in a class action, a person who suffers a loss as a result of a violation of section 3l may bring an action to recover actual damages or $5,000.00, whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorney fees. In an action brought under this subsection, the court may, in its discretion, award punitive damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 89 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2026
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Smith v. Globe Life Insurance (Michigan Supreme Court 1999, 460 Mich. 446)“…cept for the purposes of an action filed by a person under [MCL 445.911; MSA 19.418(11)], this act does not app…”
- Gorman v. American Honda Motor Co. (Michigan Court of Appeals 2013, 302 Mich. App. 113)“…be awarded under the MCPA without proof of actual damages. MCL 445.911(2). 5 Here, plaintiff failed to presen…”
- Dell v. Citizens Insurance Company of America (Michigan Court of Appeals 2015, 312 Mich. App. 734)“…ontested the amendment, arguing that it was time- barred by MCL 445.911(7). The trial court granted leave to am…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Biometric Privacy Laws: Collection, Consent & Penalties (2026), Michigan Scam and Fraud Laws: Where to Report, Your Right to Sue (2026)
§ 15.273Violation; liabilityIn force
(1) A public official who intentionally violates this act shall be personally liable in a civil action for actual and exemplary damages of not more than $500.00 total, plus court costs and actual attorney fees to a person or group of persons bringing the action. (2) Not more than 1 action under this section shall be brought against a public official for a single meeting. An action under this section shall be commenced within 180 days after the date of the violation which gives rise to the cause of action. (3) An action for damages under this section may be joined with an action for injunctive or exemplary relief under section 11.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 436.1809Payment of judgment and costs; time; failure or neglect to pay judgment and costs; punitive damages; action against insurerIn force
Except as otherwise provided for by law or the Michigan court rules, when an action for damages brought under this act has been reduced to a judgment, the insurer shall, within 90 days from the date of the judgment, pay the judgment together with the costs in full, unless the judgment has been paid or settled by the insured. If the insurer fails or neglects to pay the judgment and costs within 90 days, it shall be subject to punitive damages in the amount of $1,000.00, in addition to the amount of the judgment and interest on the judgment. The amount of the judgment, with interest on the judgment, and the punitive damages provided for in this section may be recovered by the person or persons entitled to damages under the judgment in an action against the insurer in any court of competent jurisdiction in this state.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 691.1610Recovery of damages, attorney fees, and costs; payment by third partyIn force
(1) A person other than an individual abuser who is entitled to a recovery under this act may recover economic, noneconomic, and exemplary damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable expenses for expert testimony. An individual abuser entitled to recovery under this act may recover economic damages and reasonable attorney fees and costs, including, but not limited to, reasonable expenses for expert testimony. (2) A third party shall not pay damages awarded under this act, or provide a defense or money for a defense, on behalf of an insured under a contract of insurance or indemnification.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 600.2954Maintaining civil action against individual engaging in prohibited conduct; "victim" definedIn force
(1) A victim may maintain a civil action against an individual who engages in conduct that is prohibited under section 411h or 411i of the Michigan penal code, Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931, being sections 750.411h and 750.411i of the Michigan Compiled Laws, for damages incurred by the victim as a result of that conduct. A victim may also seek and be awarded exemplary damages, costs of the action, and reasonable attorney fees in an action brought under this section. (2) A civil action may be maintained under subsection (1) whether or not the individual who is alleged to have engaged in conduct prohibited under section 411h or 411i of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931 has been charged or convicted under section 411h or 411i of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931 for the alleged violation. (3) As used in this section, "victim" means that term as defined in section 411h of Act No. 328 of the Public Acts of 1931.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 600.2953aMotion picture recording violationIn force
(1) A person who commits an act that constitutes a motion picture recording violation is liable to a person injured by the violation for 1 or more of the following: (a) Actual damages. (b) Exemplary damages of not more than $1,000.00. (c) If the person who committed the violation was acting for direct or indirect commercial advantage or financial gain, exemplary damages of not more than $50,000.00. (d) Reasonable attorney fees and costs. (2) If a person who commits an act that constitutes a motion picture recording violation is an unemancipated minor who lives with his or her parent or parents, the parent or parents are also liable to a person injured by the violation for damages allowable under this section. (3) A person injured by a motion picture recording violation may recover damages described in subsection (1) only if a formal incident report that contains factual allegations that the defendant committed a motion picture recording violation is filed with a local law enforcement agency with jurisdiction over the location where the violation took place. However, recovery under this section is not dependent on the outcome of a criminal prosecution.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 600.2962aDefinitions; injunction; damages; civil action; court actions; actual damages or convictions not prerequisite to action; additional penalties or remedies; separate causes of actionIn force
(1) As used in this section: (a) "Telecommunications service" means that term as defined in section 219a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.219a. (b) "Telecommunications service provider" means that term as defined in section 219a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.219a. (c) "Telecommunications system" means that term as defined in section 219a of the Michigan penal code, 1931 PA 328, MCL 750.219a. (d) "Unauthorized connection" means any physical, electrical, mechanical, acoustical, or other connection to a telecommunications system, without the specific authority of the telecommunications service provider. An unauthorized connection does not include any of the following: (i) An internal connection made by a person within his or her residence for the purpose of receiving authorized telecommunications service. (ii) The physical connection of a cable or other device by a person located within his or her residence which was initially placed there by the telecommunications service provider.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 600.2907aViolation of MCL 565.25; liability to owner of encumbered property; penaltyIn force
(1) A person who violates section 25 of chapter 65 of the Revised Statutes of 1846, being section 565.25 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, by encumbering property through the recording of a document without lawful cause with the intent to harass or intimidate any person is liable to the owner of the property encumbered for all of the following: (a) All of the costs incurred in bringing an action under section 25 of chapter 65 of the Revised Statutes of 1846, including actual attorney fees. (b) All damages the owner of the property may have sustained as a result of the filing of the encumbrance. (c) Exemplary damages. (2) A person who violates section 25 of chapter 65 of the Revised Statutes of 1846, by encumbering property through the recording of a document without lawful cause with the intent to harass or intimidate any person is guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment for not more than 3 years or a fine of not more than $5,000.00, or both.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 446.169Powers of attorney general relating to unlawful practice; action by target or affiliated person aggrieved by violation; remedies to plaintiff; bondIn force
(1) The attorney general may do all of the following related to unlawful practice under this act: (a) Conduct a civil investigation as provided in section 9a. (b) Enter into an assurance of discontinuance under section 9b. (c) Bring a civil action as provided in section 9c. (d) Promulgate rules under the administrative procedures act of 1969, 1969 PA 306, MCL 24.201 to 24.328. (2) A target or an affiliated person aggrieved by a violation of this act may bring an action in the circuit court. The court may award the following remedies to a plaintiff that prevails in an action brought under this subsection: (a) An injunction prohibiting any further written communication related to the unlawful practice giving rise to the action. (b) Actual damages. (c) Costs and fees, including reasonable attorney fees. (d) Exemplary damages in an amount equal to 3 times the actual damages.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 408.488Violations; ordering payments; civil penaltyIn forcecited in 2 of our articles
(1) The department shall order an employer who violates section 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 to pay the following: (a) Wages due to the employee. (b) Fringe benefits due to or on the behalf of the employee in accordance with the terms set forth in the written contract or written policy. (c) A penalty at the rate of 10% annually on the wages and fringe benefits due beginning at the time the employer is notified that a complaint has been filed and ending when payment is made. (2) The department may order an employer who violates section 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 to pay to the employee exemplary damages of not more than twice the amount of the wages and fringe benefits which were due, if the violation is flagrant or repeated. (3) The department may order an employer who violates section 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, or 8 to pay attorney costs, hearing costs, and transcript costs. (4) The department may assess a civil penalty of not more than $1,000.00 against an employer who violates this act, which civil penalty shall be credited to the general fund of this state.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Cited in 6 court opinions in our collectionLatest citing opinion in our collection: 2023
Opinions citing this section in our collection:
- Eide v. Kelsey-Hayes Co. (Michigan Supreme Court 1988, 431 Mich. 26)“…CL 295.127; MSA 12.1377 (Weather Modification Control Act); MCL 408.488; MSA 17.277(18) (wage violation); MCL 6…”
- Reo v. Lane Bryant, Inc (Michigan Court of Appeals 1995, 211 Mich. App. 364)“…claim is proved on remand, because the remedies provided in MCL 408.488(1), (2), and (3); MSA 17.277(18X1), (2)…”
- Kateri Kilpatrick v. Lansing Community College (Michigan Court of Appeals 2023)“…e WFBA are to be enforced by the Department of Labor. Under MCL 408.488(1), “[t]he department shall order an em…”
Identified automatically from the court opinions citing this section — not a ranking of which case controls.
Also relied on in: Michigan Final Paycheck Laws: Due Diligence, Not a Day Count
§ 324.20119Action to abate danger or threat; administrative order; noncompliance; liability; petition for reimbursement; action in court of claims; evidenceIn force
(1) In accordance with this section, if the department determines that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health, safety, or welfare, or the environment, because of a release or threatened release, the department may require persons who are liable under section 20126 to take necessary action to abate the danger or threat. (2) The department may issue an administrative order to a person identified by the department as a person who is liable under section 20126 requiring that person to perform response activity relating to a facility for which that person is liable or to take any other action required by this part. An order issued under this section shall state with reasonable specificity the basis for issuance of the order and specify a reasonable time for compliance. (3) Within 30 days after issuance of an administrative order under this section, a person to which the order was issued shall indicate in writing whether the person intends to comply with the order.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 324.20131Limitations on liability; circumstances requiring total costs and damagesIn force
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), the liability under this part for each release or threat of release shall not exceed the total of all the costs of response activities, fines, and exemplary damages, plus $50,000,000.00 damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources resulting from the release or threat of release, including the reasonable costs of assessing the injury, destruction, or loss resulting from the release or threat of release. (2) Notwithstanding the limitations in subsection (1), the liability of a person under this part shall be the full and total costs and damages listed in subsection (1), in either of the following circumstances: (a) The release or threatened release of a hazardous substance was the result of willful misconduct or gross negligence of the party. (b) The primary cause of the release or threat of release was a knowing violation of applicable safety, construction, or operating standards or regulations.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 324.20137Additional relief; failure of facility owner or operator to report hazardous substance release; civil fine; providing copy of complaint to attorney general; jurisdiction; judicial review; intervenorIn force
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), in addition to other relief authorized by law, the attorney general may, on behalf of the state, commence a civil action seeking 1 or more of the following: (a) Temporary or permanent injunctive relief necessary to protect the public health, safety, or welfare, or the environment from the release or threat of release. (b) Recovery of state response activity costs pursuant to section 20126a. (c) Damages for the full value of injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources resulting from the release or threat of release, including the reasonable costs of assessing the injury, destruction, or loss resulting from the release or threat of release. (d) A declaratory judgment on liability for future response activity costs and damages. (e) A civil fine of not more than $1,000.00 for each day of noncompliance without sufficient cause with a written request of the department pursuant to section 20114(1)(h). A fine imposed under this subdivision shall be based on the seriousness of the violation and any good faith efforts of the person to comply with the request of the department.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
§ 500.7704Coverages; liability of association; limitationsIn force
(1) This chapter shall provide coverage for the policies and contracts specified in subsection (2) to the following persons: (a) To a person, other than nonresident certificate holders under group policies or contracts, who, regardless of where he or she resides, is the beneficiary, assignee, or payee of a person covered under subdivision (b). (b) To a person who is an owner of, or certificate holder under, a policy or contract described in subsection (2), other than an unallocated annuity contract or structured settlement contract, and which owner or certificate holder is 1 of the following: (i) A resident. (ii) Not a resident, if all of the following conditions are met: (A) The insurer that issued the policy or contract is domiciled in this state. (B) The state in which the person resides has an association similar to the association created by this chapter. (C) The person is not eligible for coverage by an association in any other state because the insurer was not licensed in that state at the time specified in the state's guaranty association law.
Official text (excerpt) · last checked 2026-07-30 · Read the full text in our law library · Verify at legislature.mi.gov
Search our full record of US law — 2.1 million sections, every state + federal →
Sources and References
- Gilbert v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 470 Mich. 749 (2004)(static.case.law)
- Kewin v. Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Co., 409 Mich. 401 (1980)(static.case.law)
- MCL 750.539h: Eavesdropping, civil remedies(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Rafferty v. Markovitz, 461 Mich. 265 (1999)(static.case.law)
- MCL 691.1701: Uniform Arbitration Act, remedies(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Veselenak v. Smith, 414 Mich. 567 (1982)(static.case.law)
- MCL 445.911: Consumer Protection Act, actions and remedies(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 15.240: Freedom of Information Act, civil action(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 15.273: Open Meetings Act, personal liability of public official(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 436.1809: Liquor Control Code, insurer payment of dram shop judgment(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 691.1610: Drug Dealer Liability Act, damages(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2954: Civil action by stalking victim(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2953a: Motion picture recording, civil action(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2962a: Telecommunications access devices, civil action(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2907a: Encumbrance of property, damages(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 446.169: Bad-Faith Patent Infringement Claims Act, remedies(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 408.488: Wages and fringe benefits, department order(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 324.20119: Environmental response, administrative orders(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 324.20131: Environmental response, limits on liability(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 324.20137: Environmental response, civil actions and fines(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2919a: Stolen, embezzled or converted property, treble damages(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2949a: Product liability, actual knowledge of defect(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2921: Survival of actions(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2922: Wrongful Death Act, damages(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Fellows v. Superior Products Co., 201 Mich. App. 155 (1993)(static.case.law)
- Thorn v. Mercy Memorial Hospital Corp., 281 Mich. App. 644 (2008)(static.case.law)
- MCL 600.2911: Action for libel or slander(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 600.2917: Merchant and library detention of suspected person, damages(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 500.7704: Life and health insurance guaranty association, covered claims(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- 2023 Public Act 285 (amending MCL 600.2946)(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 15.240a: Freedom of Information Act, action for excessive fee(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- MCL 445.1824: Credit Services Protection Act, actions by buyer(www.legislature.mi.gov).gov
- Hoffman Machinery Corp. v. Reid Machinery Inc., No. 368468 (Mich. Ct. App. Dec. 16, 2025)(www.courtlistener.com)
- Marko Law, PLLC v. Salling, No. 371459 (Mich. Ct. App. Nov. 13, 2025)(www.courtlistener.com)
Paid attorney referral. RecordingLaw may receive compensation when you use an attorney-help link. RecordingLaw is not a law firm. Submitting a request does not guarantee that an attorney will accept your case and does not create an attorney-client relationship.