Detroit Edison Company v. Stenman
311 Mich. App. 367
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- DTE installed an Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI or "smart") meter at the Stenmans' home in Sept. 2011; the Stenmans later removed the device and replaced it with an analog meter.
- DTE sued for declaratory relief and related claims alleging tampering, violation of the tariff approved by the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC), and criminal liability under MCL 750.383a.
- Defendants raised defenses and counterclaims asserting (inter alia) that a smart meter is not a lawful "meter" under MPSC rules, that smart meters pose health and privacy risks, and that those concerns justified their conduct.
- DTE moved for partial summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); the trial court granted relief, holding (among other things) that the smart meter fits the MPSC definition of "meter," MPSC rules/tariff govern, and defendants failed to create factual issues on health/privacy.
- The trial court briefly stayed enforcement to obtain an MPSC order on an opt-out; after the MPSC approved an opt-out provision the stay was vacated. The parties later stipulated to dismissal with prejudice of remaining claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DTE) | Defendant's Argument (Stenman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether smart meter is a lawful "meter" under MPSC rules/tariff | R 460.3102(g) defines "meter" as a device measuring and registering electrical quantity over time; smart meters meet that definition | Smart meter performs non-meter functions (radio, data collection) and therefore falls outside the lawful definition of "meter" | Smart meters qualify as "meter" under R 460.3102(g); no genuine factual dispute (summary disposition affirmed) |
| Whether defendants' health/privacy concerns create a defense to tariff/regulatory obligations | MPSC rules and tariff require customers to protect utility equipment; health/privacy do not excuse tampering or noncompliance | Health effects and privacy invasion justify removal and constitute affirmative defenses or self-defense | Defendants failed to present admissible, fact-specific evidence to create a triable issue; health/privacy are not recognized defenses here |
| Whether trial court abused discretion by vacating the partial stay after MPSC action | The stay's express purpose was to await MPSC ruling on the opt-out; that occurred so vacatur was appropriate | MPSC order didn’t address defendants’ specific arguments and may be overturned; lifting stay causes irreparable harm to defendants | No abuse of discretion: the stay’s purpose was fulfilled by the MPSC order; collateral challenges were improper at that stage |
| Whether smart-meter installation violated the Fourth Amendment | DTE is a private, investor-owned utility; Fourth Amendment only applies to governmental searches and defendants lack a concrete injury from data collection | Smart meters are warrantless searches that invade privacy and potentially collect personal data | No Fourth Amendment violation: no governmental action shown and defendants lack standing to assert a speculative privacy injury |
Key Cases Cited
- Moraccini v. Sterling Heights, 296 Mich. App. 387 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (standard of review for summary disposition)
- Calhoun County v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 297 Mich. App. 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012) (materials considered on C(10) motion)
- Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich. 105 (Mich. 2008) (summary disposition standard)
- Danse Corp. v. City of Madison Heights, 466 Mich. 175 (Mich. 2002) (statutory/regulatory construction by plain language)
- Stanke v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 200 Mich. App. 307 (Mich. Ct. App. 1993) (definition and role of an affirmative defense)
- Bonner v. City of Brighton, 495 Mich. 209 (Mich. 2014) (de novo review of constitutional questions)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (U.S. 1967) (Fourth Amendment search framework)
- People v. McKendrick, 188 Mich. App. 128 (Mich. Ct. App. 1991) (private actor vs. state action in Fourth Amendment context)