Beckie Price v. High Pointe Oil Co Inc
493 Mich. 238
Mich.2013Background
- Price sued High Pointe Oil Co. for noneconomic damages after 400 gallons of oil destroyed her home; economic losses were fully compensated by insurers.
- The oil spill destroyed the house, created an environmental hazard, and necessitated razing and rebuilding at a new location.
- Plaintiff pursued claims including negligence with a focus on noneconomic damages for mental anguish from property destruction; other theories were dismissed at trial.
- The trial court denied summary disposition on noneconomic damages; the jury awarded $100,000 noneconomic damages.
- Court of Appeals affirmed, allowing noneconomic damages for property damage; Supreme Court granted leave to appeal.
- Court holds Michigan common law permits only economic damages (replacement/repair) for negligent destruction of property and declines to alter that rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether noneconomic damages are recoverable for negligent destruction of real property | Price argues noneconomic damages are recoverable for real-property destruction | High Pointe argues O’Donnell rule limits damages to economic loss only | No; noneconomic damages are not recoverable for negligent destruction of real property |
Key Cases Cited
- O'Donnell v. Oliver Iron Mining Co., 262 Mich 470 (1933) (establishes cost of replacement/repair as measure for property damage (economic only))
- Tillson v. Consumers Power Co., 269 Mich 53 (1934) (quotes O’Donnell; reinforces replacement/repair measure)
- Sutter v. Biggs, 377 Mich 80 (1966) (general damages rule; limited application for noneconomic damages in property cases; later narrowed by O’Donnell rule)
- Valentine v. Gen. American Credit, Inc., 420 Mich 256 (1984) (emphasizes make-whole philosophy and limits on noneconomic damages in certain losses)
- Beauchamp v. Beech Grove Investment Co. v. Civil Rights Comm., 380 Mich 405 (1968) (common-law evolution and public policy considerations in rule changes)
- Woodman v. Kera LLC, 486 Mich 228 (2010) (incremental development of common law; cautions against abrupt changes)