Michigan Premises Liability Funding
Pre-settlement funding for Michigan premises liability claims. MacDonald v. PKT's limited security duty, hybrid comparative fault, and the 3-year SOL explained.
Non-recourse funding is repaid only from a settlement or award. Independent capital providers set the terms.
Bills do not wait for your case.
Rent, medical bills and living costs keep arriving while a case moves through the court. An advance against a pending case can cover them and is repaid only if the case produces a recovery.
The Michigan rules that shape this claim
The rules below shape how a Michigan premises liability funding claim is underwritten and how quickly it can move toward resolution.
Three years from the date of injury for a negligence/premises-liability claim (Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2)).
Michigan applies a hybrid comparative-fault system — pure comparative negligence for economic damages, but a modified system with a 51% bar for non-economic damages (Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2959). Michigan retains the traditional invitee/licensee/trespasser categories, and its open-and-obvious danger doctrine, narrowed to a "special aspects" exception in Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512, 629 N.W.2d 384 (2001), governs visible structural hazards. For negligent security specifically, Michigan applies a notably more limited duty than many other states: MacDonald v. PKT, Inc., 464 Mich. 322, 628 N.W.2d 33 (2001), held that a merchant is generally not required to provide security guards or otherwise assume the police function of anticipating and preventing random third-party crime based on the property's general location or neighborhood crime statistics — but a merchant does have a duty to respond reasonably once an ongoing, specific situation on the premises makes danger apparent, such as an escalating altercation staff can see developing. This makes Michigan meaningfully more defendant-favorable on general foreseeability than states relying primarily on a prior-similar-incidents test, while still imposing a real duty once a specific, observable danger emerges.
No general statutory cap on damages in an ordinary premises-liability claim (Michigan's statutory damages caps apply to medical-malpractice actions, not general premises claims).
Generally accrues on a judgment from the date the complaint was filed, at statutory rates set under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013.
Proper in the county where the defendant resides or conducts business, or where the claim arose (Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629).
Michigan has no dedicated consumer litigation funding statute. No statutory cap.
How Michigan regulates consumer legal funding
Reviewed September 17, 2026. Legal information, not legal advice.
How terms are set for Michigan plaintiffs
Rates and terms are set by the capital provider and written in the provider’s agreement before signing.
Because MacDonald v. PKT requires proof of a specific, observable, ongoing situation rather than general foreseeability, and because these claims often involve a merchant, a property owner, and sometimes a separate security contractor, a Michigan negligent-security case typically requires developing a detailed, moment-by-moment factual record of what staff observed and when — a process that generally takes longer than establishing a straightforward structural defect.
Why is Michigan more difficult for a general negligent-security theory than many other states?
MacDonald v. PKT held that a merchant generally isn't required to anticipate random third-party crime based on the property's neighborhood or general crime statistics — Michigan does not impose a broad duty to hire guards simply because an area has a crime problem.
That narrows the available theory in Michigan compared with states that recognize a duty based on documented area crime trends; a Michigan claim instead needs to focus on what happened at the specific location, on that specific occasion, and what staff could have observed.
What does it mean to show an "ongoing situation" under Michigan law?
Even without a general duty to anticipate crime, Michigan recognizes that once a specific dangerous situation becomes apparent — an escalating fight, a visibly agitated individual — staff have a duty to respond reasonably rather than ignore it.
Building this narrower claim requires evidence of what employees actually saw or were told and when — security-camera footage, radio or communication logs, and witness accounts of any warning signs in the moments before the injury occurred.
How does the hybrid comparative-fault system affect a Michigan negligent security claim's value?
Economic damages such as medical bills and lost wages are reduced under pure comparative fault and never barred, while non-economic damages like pain and suffering are subject to a 51% bar that can eliminate that portion of recovery entirely.
This split means a Michigan claim retains economic-damages value even where fault allocation threatens the non-economic recovery, a materially different risk profile than a single-track comparative-fault state.
Premises Liability Funding questions in Michigan
Michigan gives an injured person three years from the date of injury to file suit under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2). Claims against a Michigan governmental agency involve separate, much shorter notice requirements, often 120 days or six months depending on the entity, that must be met independently.
Generally not on that basis alone. MacDonald v. PKT, Inc. held that Michigan merchants are not required to anticipate random crime based on neighborhood statistics. A viable claim instead usually requires evidence of a specific, observable, ongoing dangerous situation that staff failed to reasonably address.
Michigan uses a hybrid system: your economic damages are reduced by your fault percentage but never eliminated, while non-economic damages are barred entirely if you are found 51% or more at fault, under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2959.
No Michigan statute specifically regulating consumer pre-settlement litigation-funding disclosures has been confirmed as of this writing. General Michigan consumer-protection and contract law still applies to a funding agreement, and this should be reconfirmed periodically.
Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.5805(2) · Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2959 · Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512, 629 N.W.2d 384 (2001) · MacDonald v. PKT, Inc., 464 Mich. 322, 628 N.W.2d 33 (2001) · Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.6013 · Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.1629
Reviewed September 17, 2026. Legal information, not legal advice.
Request funding for your case.
Pre-settlement funding is a non-recourse purchase of a portion of the proceeds of a pending legal claim — not a loan. If the case does not result in a recovery, nothing is owed. Rates, fees, and repayment terms are disclosed in full in the funding agreement, which the applicant’s attorney reviews before signing. Availability and terms vary by state.