Caron v. Cranbrook Educational Community
298 Mich. App. 629
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Caron injured June 22, 2009 when a T-shaped, three-part portable room partition (PRP) fell while being moved in Cranbrook Academy of Art’s art classroom addition completed in 2002.
- Christman designed, manufactured, and sold the PRP; Osier and Moneo provided architectural design services for the project.
- Plaintiffs filed a 19-count complaint in April 2010 against Cranbrook, Christman, Osier, and Moneo over design, construction, sale, and use of the PRP.
- WDCA exclusive remedy issue resolved in Cranbrook’s favor; plaintiffs did not appeal that order.
- MCL 600.5839 (statute of repose/limitations) governs whether the PRP constitutes an “improvement to real property” and bar the claim after six years from occupancy, use, or acceptance.
- Trial court held that the PRP was a capital improvement to real property and thus barred by MCL 600.5839; three summary-disposition orders followed, which the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the PRP constitute an improvement to real property under MCL 600.5839? | Caron argues the PRP was movable and not affixed to realty, so not an improvement. | Defendants contend PRP was an integral, permanent part of the construction project and thus an improvement. | Yes; PRP analyzed as an improvement under four-factor test; thus barred. |
| Are the summary dispositions proper given the statute of repose/limitations? | Disputes remain about value and permanence; discovery incomplete. | Factors show improvement; statute applies; discovery not necessitated for disposition. | Yes; the action is time-barred under MCL 600.5839. |
| Did permanence weigh against or support treating PRP as an improvement? | Portable means not permanently attached; not an improvement. | Permanence is a factor, but not dispositive; PRPs were permanent in function and design. | Permanence weighed in favor of improvement; PRPs constructively annexed to the building. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ostroth v Warren Regency GR LLC, 474 Mich 36 (2006) (statutory interpretation and scope of MCL 600.5839 as a statute of repose/limitations)
- Pitsch v ESE Mich, Inc., 233 Mich App 578 (1999) (interpretation of ‘improvement to real property’ factors)
- McCormick v Carrier, 487 Mich 180 (2010) (governing principles of statutory interpretation for MCL 600.5839)
- Skinner v Square D Co, 445 Mich 153 (1994) (recognition that installation can enhance capital value)
- Pendzsu v Beazer East, Inc., 219 Mich App 405 (1996) (permanence as a non-dispositive factor in real-property improvement analysis)
- Miller-Davis Co v Ahrens Constr, Inc, 489 Mich 355 (2011) (extensive discussion of when items constitute improvements to real property)
- Reames v Hawthorne-Seiving, Inc., 949 S.W.2d 758 (Tex App, 1997) (constructive annexation and permanence considerations (persuasive)} , {)