Estate of Susan K Arrington v. County of Lake
332523
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jul 20, 2017Background
- Decedent owned a newly built home inspected and issued a certificate of occupancy on September 6, 2005; defendants (Phelps/No-Che-Mo/Phelps Plumbing & Heating) performed installation and later service/repair work on the heating/hot-water system.
- Plaintiff (estate) sued after decedent died from carbon monoxide poisoning on December 27, 2012, alleging defective/unsafe installation of the heating system.
- Trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, finding the action time-barred under MCL 600.5839; plaintiff appealed.
- Key factual disputes: whether post-occupancy visits in Jan and Dec 2006 constituted new "improvements" that restarted the statutory period; whether defendants were grossly negligent.
- Defendants presented affidavits stating most work was done before occupancy, later visits were service calls, the county inspected and passed the system, and decedent supplied some equipment and directed installation; plaintiff’s expert opined code violations and gross negligence.
- Court of Appeals affirmed: held the six-year limitations period ran from occupancy (2005) and expired before the wrongful-death claim; gross negligence not shown as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the action is time-barred under MCL 600.5839(1)(a) | The limitations period did not begin until Dec 20, 2006 (last work), so suit timely | Limitations began at occupancy/certificate in Sept 2005; later visits were service calls, not new "improvements" | Court: Time began at occupancy (Sept 2005); action time-barred |
| Whether MCL 600.5852 tolls limitations because decedent died after period ran | Tolling applies if decedent died within 30 days after limitations ran | Statute inapplicable because period ran long before death | Court: MCL 600.5852 does not rescue claim; not applicable |
| Whether defendants were grossly negligent so the 1-year discovery/10-year cap applies (MCL 600.5839(1)(b)) | Expert affidavit alleges multiple code violations and gross negligence causing death | Defendants assert cooperative conduct, decedent supplied parts/instructions, passed inspection; evidence insufficient for gross negligence as matter of law | Court: Record does not show gross negligence; (1)(b) inapplicable |
| Whether factual disputes about scope of defendants’ role preclude summary disposition | Plaintiff: disputes (design/installation vs. following decedent’s instructions) are material | Defendants: even accepting disputes, evidence still fails to show gross negligence or restart limitations | Court: Disputes not dispositive; summary disposition proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Beauregard-Bezou v. Pierce, 194 Mich. App. 388 (discusses operation of MCL 600.5839 as tied to occupancy/use/acceptance)
- Fennell v. John J. Nesbitt, Inc., 154 Mich. App. 644 (statute of limitations under prior MCL 600.5839 runs from occupancy/use/acceptance)
- Caron v. Cranbrook Educational Community, 298 Mich. App. 629 (Legislature limited contractor/architect liability under MCL 600.5839)
- Tarlea v. Crabtree, 263 Mich. App. 80 (definition/standard for gross negligence: actor’s lack of care for safety)
- Xu v. Gay, 257 Mich. App. 263 (gross negligence requires conduct so reckless an objective observer would conclude actor didn’t care about safety)
- Costa v. Community Emergency Medical Services, Inc., 475 Mich. 403 (definition of gross negligence statutory standard)
- Jackson v. County of Saginaw, 458 Mich. 141 (courts may decide gross negligence when reasonable minds cannot differ)
- Messenger v. Ingham County Prosecutor, 232 Mich. App. 633 (appellate affirmation under alternative reasoning is proper)
- Frank v. Linkner, 894 N.W.2d 574 (review standards for MCR 2.116(C)(7) statute-of-limitations dismissal)