Cannon Township v. Rockford Public Schools
311 Mich. App. 403
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Cannon Township owns the Davies sewer line that serves residential customers and East Rockford Middle School (part of Rockford Public Schools, RPS).
- The middle school has a potable-water filtration system whose backwash discharges waste into the Davies line during an automatic 15-minute cycle; a power outage can leave valves open and cause excessive discharge that the Davies line cannot handle.
- On August 20, 2011 a power outage caused an extended backwash, overwhelming the Davies line and causing a sewage backup in Robert and Pamela Mack’s home, producing over $90,000 in claimed damages.
- The Macks were paid $50,000 by the township’s insurer (MMLLPP) and assigned their claims to Cannon Township; MMLLPP later assigned subrogation rights to the township as well.
- Cannon Township sued RPS for damages; RPS moved for summary disposition arguing (a) the township was not the real party in interest and (b) the claim failed to plead facts avoiding governmental immunity under the GTLA. The trial court denied RPS’s motion; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real party in interest | Township is the real party by assignment from the Macks and the insurer (MMLLPP) | Township never paid the Macks and thus lacks standing/real-party status | Assignments vested the Macks’ and MMLLPP’s rights in the township; township is real party in interest (leave to amend complaint granted) |
| Is the school filtration system a “sewage disposal system” under MCL 691.1416(j)? | System disposes waste (backwash) into sewer and is thus an "instrumentality used or useful" for sewage collection/disposal | Filtration system is primarily for potable water and not a sewage system | Court held the filtration unit qualifies as an "instrumentality" of a sewage disposal system and meets the statutory definition |
| Existence of a “defect” in the sewage disposal system (MCL 691.1416(3)) | Valve/operation design allowed prolonged discharge after power loss — a construction/design/operation defect | No actionable defect alleged; system functioning as designed for potable delivery | Evidence of the valve/power-outage failure created a genuine issue of fact that a defect existed sufficient to avoid immunity |
| Knowledge of the defect by RPS (MCL 691.1417(3)(c)) | RPS had notice through prior similar event and staff reports that valves remained open in 2010 | RPS officials lacked knowledge of prior events or the valve problem | Factual dispute exists (e.g., testimony that custodian showed county DPW employee the problem in 2010), so summary disposition on immunity grounds was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- BC Tile & Marble Co, Inc. v. Multi Bldg. Co., Inc., 288 Mich. App. 576 (summary disposition standard for C(10))
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (courts may consider pleadings and outside evidence on C(10) motions)
- Leite v. Dow Chemical Co., 439 Mich. 920 (real-party-in-interest defense distinguished from capacity-to-sue)
- Barclae v. Zarb, 300 Mich. App. 455 (definition and policy purpose of real party in interest)
- Kearns v. Michigan Iron & Coke Co., 340 Mich. 577 (assignee becomes real party in interest)
- Willett v. Charter Twp. of Waterford, 271 Mich. App. 38 (elements required to avoid governmental immunity; definition of "defect")
- Nawrocki v. Macomb Co. Rd. Comm., 463 Mich. 143 (GTLA immunity exceptions are narrowly construed)
- Linton v. Arenac Co. Rd. Comm., 273 Mich. App. 107 (elements for sewage disposal system event exception)