Erin Naseef v. Wallside Inc, 329505

Plaintiff was injured when a window sash fell on her foot during repair/installation at her home. She sued Wallside, Inc. and later added HFS Construction, LLC.
Wallside moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10), submitting an Installer’s Agreement with HFS and affidavits showing HFS performed work as an independent contractor (supplied tools, controlled methods, paid by job).
Wallside also submitted a service ticket and a written statement by Adam Dandron (the on-site technician) saying the sash fell, and that he did not drop it.
Plaintiff opposed with a webpage screenshot from Wallside’s site she claimed held out installers as Wallside employees; she provided no affidavits or other evidentiary material opposing Wallside’s evidence.
After the court granted summary disposition for Wallside, plaintiff amended to add HFS. HFS moved for summary disposition, submitting an independent-contractor agreement with Dandron and affidavits that Dandron was an independent contractor and HFS did not control his methods.
Plaintiff opposed HFS’s motion without affidavits, arguing discovery was incomplete and asserting (but not proving with affidavit or documentary evidence) that Dandron might have been an employee.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Wallside is liable vicariously for the technician’s negligence (employee or ostensible agent)?	Webpage screenshot shows Wallside holds out installers as its employees/agents.	Wallside: HFS was an independent contractor; evidence (contract, affidavits, service ticket) shows no control over means or tools.	Held: Wallside entitled to summary disposition; webpage did not create a genuine issue that repair work was performed by Wallside employees or ostensible agents.
Whether HFS is liable for the technician’s negligence (employee v. independent contractor) and whether summary disposition was premature given incomplete discovery?	Dandron’s status may be employee; discovery incomplete, deposition testimony might support plaintiff.	HFS: Dandron was an independent contractor (contract, affidavits); no contrary admissible evidence from plaintiff.	Held: Summary disposition as to HFS was premature; reversed and remanded because further discovery could fairly produce evidence that Dandron was an employee.

Peters v. Dep’t of Corrections, 215 Mich. App. 485 (standard of review for summary disposition)
Latham v. Barton Malow Co., 480 Mich. 105 (summary disposition standards; consider evidence in light most favorable to nonmoving party)
Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109 (requirement that nonmoving party present affidavits or other evidence to oppose (C)(10) motion)
Marilyn Froling Revocable Living Trust v. Bloomfield Hills Country Club, 283 Mich. App. 264 (incomplete discovery and when (C)(10) dismissal is premature)
Campbell v. Kovich, 273 Mich. App. 227 (control test definition for independent contractor)
Reeves v. Kmart Corp., 229 Mich. App. 466 (general rule that employer of independent contractor not liable for contractor’s negligence)
Grewe v. Mt. Clemens Gen. Hosp., 404 Mich. 240 (elements of ostensible agency)
Utley v. Taylor & Gaskin, Inc., 305 Mich. (factors showing independent-contractor status)