Brian Zezula v. Nina Brown
368261
Mich. Ct. App.Mar 11, 2025Background
- The case involves Brian Zezula suing multiple parties, including Independence Township (a governmental agency), for alleged violations of the MISS DIG Act related to underground facility damage prevention, as well as a claim under the sewage-disposal-system-event exception to governmental immunity.
- The main issue is whether amendments to the GTLA (Governmental Tort Liability Act) and the MISS DIG Act created a broad exception to governmental immunity for violations of MISS DIG, or if any exception is limited and process-bound.
- Prior precedent (State Farm) held that the MISS DIG Act did not abrogate governmental immunity, but in 2014, the Legislature amended the relevant statutes.
- The dissent disputes the trial court’s denial of summary disposition in favor of Independence Township and objects to allowing further amendment to claim the sewage-disposal exception.
- The dissent argues for strict construction of immunity exceptions and contends that the MISS DIG Act only allows administrative remedies through the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), not court-based tort claims.
- The court majority, which the dissent criticizes, relies on a broad reading of the statutory language to find an exception to immunity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held (Dissent) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the MISS DIG Act create a broad exception to governmental immunity? | Zezula argues legislative amendments allow for broad tort liability against governmental agencies under MISS DIG. | Independence Township argues any exception is limited to MPSC administrative process, not court-based tort claims. | No broad exception; only limited, commission-based remedies are allowed. |
| Are commission-based remedies under MISS DIG Act the exclusive means of relief? | Zezula claims MISS DIG allows civil damages actions for violations by governmental agencies. | Independence Township asserts the act only permits complaints to MPSC, not independent civil actions. | Only MPSC complaints permitted; tort actions in court not allowed under MISS DIG. |
| Is failure to locate/mark underground utilities a 'defect' in a sewage disposal system under the GTLA? | Zezula argues this operational lapse constitutes a statutory defect, supporting the sewage-disposal exception. | Independence Township contends the act doesn’t expand 'defect' to include MISS DIG violations. | Such lapses are not 'defects' under the sewage-disposal exception. |
| Should amendment to add a sewage disposal system event claim be permitted? | Zezula seeks leave to amend on the grounds that facts may support the exception. | Independence Township asserts amendment is futile as legal standard not met. | Claim should not be permitted; legal basis insufficient. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rowland v. Washtenaw County Rd Comm’n, 477 Mich 197 (governmental immunity is broad; exceptions narrowly construed)
- State Farm Fire & Cas Co v. Corby Energy Servs, Inc, 271 Mich App 480 (MISS DIG Act did not previously waive governmental immunity)
- In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 385 (definition of 'tort liability' under GTLA)
- Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 (enumerates GTLA exceptions)