Fingerle v. City of Ann Arbor
308 Mich. App. 318
Mich. Ct. App.2014Background
- Plaintiff (Fingerle) owns a Landsdowne subdivision home in Ann Arbor, a historically flood-prone area; the city built storm-drainage infrastructure in the early 1990s that reduced but did not eliminate flooding.
- Plaintiff finished a basement in 2002 with an egress window facing a private retention basin that had overflowed previously.
- In June 2010 an intense storm flooded the neighborhood and rainwater entered plaintiff’s basement through the egress window.
- Plaintiff’s theory: a 1989 private engineering report said a relief sewer would handle ~3.25 inches (a 10‑year storm); the sewer as built had less capacity, was “defective,” and thus the city is liable under the Sewage Act (MCL 691.1416–.1419).
- The city moved for summary disposition under governmental immunity (GTLA); the trial court denied the motion and the appellate majority reversed and dismissed, holding the Sewage Act does not provide relief for plaintiff’s claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the Sewage Act (MCL 691.1416–.1419) apply to rain-caused flooding here? | Fingerle: relief sewer was undersized and its defect caused the flooding; Sewage Act exception applies. | Ann Arbor: the Act governs sewage events, not natural rainstorms; statute is targeted and exceptions are narrow. | Held: Act addresses sewage events; rain-caused flooding absent governmental diversion/affirmative harmful act is outside the Act’s scope. |
| Does plaintiff’s claim sound in tort under the GTLA or in contract/common law? | Fingerle: alleges defect in the relief sewer (design/construction) creating tort liability under the Sewage Act. | Ann Arbor: plaintiff’s theory depends on an asserted representation (the engineer’s statement) and therefore sounds in contract/detrimental reliance, which the Sewage Act abrogates. | Held: Court characterized the claim as essentially contractual (based on representations about capacity) and not a proper GTLA tort claim; contract/common-law theories are abrogated. |
| Was there a duty, breach, and causation meeting MCL 691.1417(3) elements (defect, notice, failure to remedy, substantial proximate cause)? | Fingerle: evidence (engineer reports, neighbor testimony) creates factual disputes on defect, notice, failure to act, and that defect was 50%+ cause. | Ann Arbor: no statutory duty to build drainage; its actions reduced flooding; plaintiff cannot show the sewer was a substantial proximate cause (>=50%) given the intense storm and plaintiff’s egress window. | Held: Majority: plaintiff failed as matter of law—statute not applicable and claim barred; concurrence emphasized lack of substantial proximate cause given multiple causes of flooding. |
| If a governmental entity makes statements about planned capacity, do those statements create enforceable liability under the Sewage Act? | Fingerle/dissent: engineer’s design statement bears on defect and causation; statements can support a claim that the system was defective. | Ann Arbor/majority: permitting liability based on such statements would convert tort statute into a contract-like regime, expand municipal liability and incentives to avoid transparency or infrastructure projects. | Held: Court refused to treat mere statements/representations as creating Sewage Act liability; adopting plaintiff’s view would improperly expand municipal exposure. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 (2013) (distinguishes torts from contract-based obligations)
- Bosanic v. Motz Dev., Inc., 277 Mich App 277 (2007) (GTLA Sewage Act exceptions are the sole remedy and must be narrowly construed)
- Linton v. Arenac Co. Rd. Comm., 273 Mich App 107 (2006) (governmental affirmative actions that cause flooding can trigger Sewage Act liability)
- Willett v. Waterford Charter Twp., 271 Mich App 38 (2006) (elements and causation standard under MCL 691.1417)
- Roby v. Mount Clemens, 274 Mich App 26 (2007) (standard of review for governmental immunity and MCR 2.116(C)(7))
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (1999) (summary disposition evidentiary framework)
- Fisher Sand & Gravel Co. v. Neal A. Sweebe, Inc., 494 Mich 543 (2013) (statutory interpretation: enforce plain language when unambiguous)
- Donaldson v. City of Marshall, 247 Mich 357 (1929) (when a municipality takes action to establish drainage it may have a duty to maintain it so as not to cause accumulation on private land)