Exclusive remedy as in Monroe? MSC says, "NO! NO! NO!"

In Michigan Dep't of Agriculture v Appletree Marketing, Inc, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Agricultural Commodities Marketing Act (ACMA) does not provide the exclusive remedy for its violation and does not supersede preexisting statutory remedies or abrogate common law remedies.

The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred by relying on Morales v Auto-Owner's Insurance Co. In Morales, the Supreme Court stated, "[i]f a statute gives new rights and prescribes new remedies, such remedies must be strictly pursued; and a party seeking a remedy under the act is confined to the remedy conferred thereby and to that only.'" The Court distinguished Morales, noting that the proposition is inapplicable where the statute in question plainly states that it does not provide the exclusive remedy for its violation.

The Court further held that, "[t]he proposition articulated in Monroe Beverage should not be applied as a general statement concerning statutes that provide new rights and remedies irrespective of the specific language of such statutes. It should not, in other words, be applied outside the facts that give rise to its application or in a manner that is contrary to the plain meaning of statutory language."