*552These consolidated cases1 arise out of a fatal car crash. Defendant Eaton County Road Commission appeals as of right the trial court's order denying the Road Commission's motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(7) (immunity granted by law). The parties dispute the retroactivity of Streng v. Bd. of Mackinac Co. Rd. Comm'rs , 315 Mich. App. 449, 890 N.W.2d 680 (2016), holding that the notice provision at MCL 224.21(3) in the highway code, MCL 220.1 et seq ., rather than the notice provision at MCL 691.1404(1) in the governmental tort liability act *553(GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq ., governs a claim brought against a county road commission. We hold that Streng applies retroactively. We reverse the trial court's order ruling otherwise, although we affirm the trial court's ruling that the Road Commission was not required to assert defective notice as an affirmative defense, and we remand these cases for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. BACKGROUND
On March 8, 2015, Melissa Musser, whose estate is a defendant, was driving a minivan owned by defendant Patricia Musser. Plaintiff Joseph Grinage and Brendon Pearce, whose estate is a plaintiff, were passengers in the car. Melissa lost control of the minivan when she came to standing water in the roadway. The minivan went off the road, rolled over, and came to rest on its roof against a tree. Everyone except Pearce had been drinking, and the minivan was traveling about 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. Pearce died at the scene of the crash. Melissa died at the hospital. Grinage was seriously injured.
On May 5, 2015, Lynn Pearce, the personal representative of the estate of Brendon Pearce, served a "Notice to Eaton County of Fatal Injuries due to Defective Highway" on the Road Commission. Grinage served a "Notice of Intent to File a Claim" on the Road Commission on July 2, 2015.
Grinage and Pearce each filed a complaint, alleging that the Musser defendants were negligent and that the Road Commission breached its statutory duty under MCL 691.1402 to maintain the roads. In Pearce's case, the Road Commission first filed a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), arguing that Pearce's notice was inadequate. The trial court *554disagreed and denied the motion. *394The Road Commission appealed the trial court's decision. Pearce then filed a motion to affirm on appeal, arguing that her notice was sufficient under Streng and the provision in MCL 224.21(3) that the notice should state "substantially" the details of the injury. This Court granted Pearce's motion to affirm.2 The Road Commission sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court, which denied leave to appeal.3
After this Court granted Pearce's motion to affirm, the Road Commission returned to the trial court and filed a motion for summary disposition in the consolidated cases, arguing that all three plaintiffs' notices were insufficient under MCL 224.21(3). The parties disputed whether Streng applied retroactively and whether MCL 224.21(3), as applied in Streng , or MCL 691.1404(1), the GTLA notice provision, governed plaintiffs' notices. Two of the plaintiffs further argued that the Road Commission waived its challenge to plaintiffs' notices because it did not assert defective notice under MCL 224.21 as an affirmative defense.
The trial court denied the Road Commission's motion. The trial court rejected Pearce's argument that the Road Commission was required to assert insufficient notice as an affirmative defense because inadequate notice was a component of governmental immunity, which is not an affirmative defense. Nonetheless, the trial court concluded that Streng did not apply retroactively because it announced a new rule, reliance on the old rule was widespread, and retroactive application of Streng would adversely affect the administration of justice.
*555II. DISCUSSION
This Court reviews a trial court's ruling on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Stevenson v. Detroit , 264 Mich. App. 37, 40, 689 N.W.2d 239 (2004). This Court also reviews the legal question of retroactivity de novo. Johnson v. White , 261 Mich. App. 332, 336, 682 N.W.2d 505 (2004). Summary disposition is proper if a party has "immunity granted by law...." MCR 2.116(C)(7). When reviewing a motion for summary disposition under Subrule (C)(7), this Court reviews the documentary evidence and accepts the plaintiffs' well-pleaded allegations as true unless documentation contradicts those allegations. Stevenson , 264 Mich. App. at 40, 689 N.W.2d 239.
Governmental agencies are generally immune from liability when they are performing a governmental function, unless otherwise provided by statute. MCL 691.1407(1) ; Streng , 315 Mich. App. at 455, 890 N.W.2d 680. The GTLA provides that the "liability, procedure, and remedy as to county roads under the jurisdiction of a county road commission shall be as provided in ... MCL 224.21." MCL 691.1402(1). MCL 224.21(3) contains a notice provision requiring potential plaintiffs to give notice to the clerk and the chairperson of the board of county road commissioners within 60 days of the injury. For all other highway defect claims, the GTLA's 120-day notice provision at MCL 691.1404(1) governs. In 2016, this Court held that MCL 224.21(3) governs claims brought against county road commissions. Streng , 315 Mich. App. at 462-463, 890 N.W.2d 680.
In May 2018, a panel of this Court concluded that Streng applies prospectively only.
*395Brugger v. Midland Co. Bd. of Rd. Commr's , 324 Mich. App. 307, 920 N.W.2d 388 (2018). That decision, however, does not cite or discuss W A Foote Mem. Hosp. v. Mich. Assigned Claims Plan , 321 Mich. App. 159, 909 N.W.2d 38 (2017), issued in *556August 2017, soon after the trial court's order in this case.4 In Foote , a panel of this Court addressed the retroactivity of a judicial interpretation of a statute. "A panel of the Court of Appeals must follow the rule of law established by a prior published decision of the Court of Appeals issued on or after November 1, 1990, that has not been reversed or modified by the Supreme Court, or by a special panel of the Court of Appeals as provided in this rule." MCR 7.215(J)(1). Because Foote was published before Brugger and controls the issue in this case, we are required to follow W A Foote .5
Foote , 321 Mich. App. at 182-183, 909 N.W.2d 38, followed the retroactivity test announced in Spectrum Health Hosps. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mich. , 492 Mich. 503, 536, 821 N.W.2d 117 (2012) :
" 'The general principle is that a decision of a court of supreme jurisdiction overruling a former decision is retrospective in its operation, and the effect is not that the former decision is bad law, but that it never was the law.' " This principle does have an exception: When a
''statute law has received a given construction by the courts of last resort and contracts have been made and rights acquired under and in accordance with such construction, such contracts may not be invalidated, nor vested rights acquired under them impaired, by a change of construction made by a subsequent decision.'' [ Spectrum Health , 492 Mich. at 536, 821 N.W.2d 117, quoting Gentzler v. Constantine Village Clerk , 320 Mich. 394, 398, 31 N.W.2d 668 (1948) (citation omitted).]
*557The Foote Court noted that this rule only pertains to the retroactivity of decisions interpreting a statute, Foote , 321 Mich.App. at 190 n. 15, 909 N.W.2d 38, and concluded that the Spectrum Health test, the Supreme Court's most recent resolution of a retroactivity question, overrides the "threshold" test and the "three-factor" test.6 Id . at 191, 909 N.W.2d 38. The threshold test asks whether the decision announces a new rule of law. Id . at 177, 909 N.W.2d 38. If so, the three-factor test considers "(1) the purpose to be served by the new rule, (2) the extent of reliance on the old rule, and (3) the effect of retroactivity on the administration of justice." Id . at 193, 909 N.W.2d 38 (citation and quotation marks omitted).
*396Foote, id. at 189-195, 909 N.W.2d 38, applied the Spectrum Health test, the threshold test, and the three-factor test to conclude that a recent Supreme Court decision overruling prior precedent applied retroactively. Because the interpretation of statutory text was not new law, retroactivity was proper under the Spectrum Health test and the threshold test. Id . at 189-192, 909 N.W.2d 38. In addition, the exception in the Spectrum Health test did not apply because the plaintiff's claim was based on the absence of a contract and the plaintiff's claim did not arise from a Supreme Court case. Id . at 191 n. 17, 909 N.W.2d 38. Finally, applying *558the three-factor test, the Court concluded that the purpose of the "new" rule was to conform caselaw to the terms of the statute, noted that the parties had extensively relied on prior caselaw, but decided that promoting consistency in the law served the administration of justice. Id . at 193-195, 909 N.W.2d 38.
Foote controls this case in all respects. First, Streng followed the Supreme Court's decision in Rowland v. Washtenaw County Rd. Comm. , 477 Mich. 197, 731 N.W.2d 41 (2007), and interpreted the text of MCL 224.21, so Streng is not new law.7 For the same reason, Streng is retroactive under the threshold test. In addition, plaintiffs' claims do not meet the exception in the Spectrum Health retroactivity test. The parties' dispute in this case does not arise out of a contract, and plaintiffs' claims do not find support in Rowland .8
Streng is also retroactive using the three-factor test. The trial court and plaintiffs championed widespread reliance on the "old" rule and the unjust effect of applying Streng retroactively. Foote , 321 Mich. App. at 195, 909 N.W.2d 38, decided that the proper, consistent interpretation of the statutory text outweighed these reliance concerns. Further, the cause of action in this case can defeat governmental immunity, which is especially significant for enforcing only those causes of action enacted by the *559Legislature, as noted in the context of no-fault benefits in Foote, id. at 192, 909 N.W.2d 38. Accordingly, the trial court erred by ruling that Streng did not apply retroactively.9
Applying Streng and MCL 224.21(3), plaintiffs' notices were noncompliant. MCL 224.21(3) requires service of the notice of defect on the Road Commission and the county clerk within 60 days of the accident. MCL 224.21(3) ; Streng , 315 Mich. App. at 466-467, 890 N.W.2d 680. It is not clear if Grinage served his notice on the county clerk. Even if he did, his notice was deficient because he served it more than 60 days after the accident. Pearce's *397notice was defective because she only served it on the Road Commission, not the county clerk, even though the notice was timely. Therefore, the trial court erred by measuring plaintiffs' notices against MCL 691.1404(1) and finding them sufficient.
Finally, the trial court determined that the Road Commission was not required to plead defective notice under MCL 224.21 as an affirmative defense. We agree. Governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense. Kendricks v. Rehfield , 270 Mich. App. 679, 681, 716 N.W.2d 623 (2006). Rather, it is a characteristic of government, and a plaintiff must plead in avoidance of governmental immunity. Mack v. Detroit , 467 Mich. 186, 203, 649 N.W.2d 47 (2002).
The notice provision is an integral component of defeating governmental immunity. Interpreting the effect of a notice provision at MCL 600.6431, the *560Supreme Court held that this provision "establishes conditions precedent for avoiding the governmental immunity conferred by the GTLA, which expressly incorporates MCL 600.6431." Fairley v. Dep't of Corrections , 497 Mich. 290, 297, 871 N.W.2d 129 (2015). Similarly, MCL 691.1402(1) in the GTLA refers to MCL 224.21 for claims brought against county road commissions, and this section includes the notice provision at MCL 224.21(3). Therefore, the notice requirements in MCL 224.21(3), including the deadline and service requirements, are a component of pleading a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity. Accordingly, the burden was on plaintiffs to meet the requirements for bringing a claim against the Road Commission. The trial court correctly rejected the argument that the Road Commission waived its challenge to the sufficiency of plaintiffs' notices by failing to plead defective notice as an affirmative defense.
III. CONCLUSION
We reverse the trial court's denial of the Road Commission's motion for summary disposition. We hold that Streng applies retroactively and that plaintiffs' notices were deficient under MCL 224.21(3). We affirm the trial court's ruling that the Road Commission was not required to plead defective notice as an affirmative defense. Accordingly, we direct the trial court to grant the Road Commission's motion for summary disposition.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.
K. F. Kelly and Riordan, JJ., concurred with O'Connell, P.J.