Michigan’s Senate passed a five-bill package (SB 257-261) on May 20, 2025, that would open a one-year revival window for childhood sexual abuse claims and strip governmental immunity from public schools and universities whose employees committed abuse. The bills now sit in the House Government Operations Committee, where Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township) has expressed skepticism about the package. The Senate vote was 25-9, with all Democrats and six Republicans in favor.
SB 257 extends the civil statute of limitations for criminal sexual conduct claims to the later of age 42, 10 years after the abuse, or seven years after discovery. The one-year revival window would allow survivors whose claims are currently time-barred to file civil suits, with damages capped at $1.5 million per defendant. SB 260 is the companion provision that removes governmental immunity from public schools and universities where the institution “knew or should have known” an employee had committed abuse and failed to prevent it.
Who it affects
The immunity waiver in SB 260 is the provision that determines whether Michigan’s window produces meaningful claims volume or remains symbolic. Without it, governmental immunity under Michigan’s 1964 PA 170 would block most civil claims against public school districts and state universities. SB 260 removes that shield for negligent hiring, supervision, or retention of employees who committed criminal sexual conduct.
Self-insured school districts, public university risk pools, intermediate school district (ISD) programs, and joint powers authority risk-sharing groups face direct exposure. Michigan has roughly 540 traditional school districts and 15 public universities, many of which self-insure or participate in pooled programs. Members of those pools face both direct claims and potential supplemental assessments.
Reserve mechanism
The reserve impact is a frequency shock from a zero baseline. Michigan’s governmental immunity has historically blocked civil claims against educational institutions for employee conduct, so existing reserves reflect no exposure for the claim type SB 260 would open.
If the bills pass, previously time-barred claims become actionable during the one-year window, potentially spanning decades of alleged conduct. Abuse claims carry long settlement tails. Peer-state experience from New York’s Gender-Motivated Violence Act lookback window and Pennsylvania’s pending revival bill suggest that initial filings cluster in the first six months, but resolution stretches three to five years. Development factors drawn from pre-window periods will not capture the frequency spike, and existing case reserves need immediate adjustment because the prior baseline was zero.
New Jersey’s Supreme Court ruling stripping school districts of Tort Claims Act immunity for abuse produced a similar structural shift, moving public entity GL reserves from a position of assumed immunity to open-ended liability. Michigan’s legislative approach, pairing the revival window with an explicit immunity waiver, follows the same pattern now emerging in multiple states.
What this means for your next review
If your school district, university pool, or public entity risk-sharing group has Michigan exposure, put SB 257-261 on the agenda now. Do not wait for passage. Ask your actuary what initial IBNR load is appropriate given zero historical baseline, what peer-state data from New York, California’s AB 218, and New Jersey can serve as frequency and severity benchmarks, and whether the $1.5 million per-defendant cap limits aggregate exposure or just compresses per-claim severity.