827 N.W.2d 401
Mich. Ct. App.2012Background
- Hardaway, employed March 1990 as Principal Attorney for Wayne County; employment ended in 2003.
- Resolution No. 94-903 amended 93-742 to provide extended insurance/health care benefits for certain county appointees meeting conditions after Jan 1, 1994.
- Resolution requires eight years of county service and specific roles, including appointees not confirmed by the County Commission in some formulations.
- Plaintiff repeatedly requested the extended benefits post-employment; requests were denied or ignored.
- Plaintiff sued May 1, 2009 for declaratory judgment, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel; circuit court granted summary disposition for defendant.
- Court reverses and remands, holding plaintiff eligible for benefits due to lack of Commission confirmation and ambiguity in the policy text.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is plaintiff eligible for extended benefits under Resolution 94-903? | Plaintiff was an appointee not confirmed by the County Commission, fitting the third requirement. | Eligibility limited to those confirmed by the County Commission or otherwise not meeting the specified appointee categories. | Yes; plaintiff eligible; resolution ambiguous and read consistent with text. |
| How should the phrase 'an appointee other than a member of a board or commission who is confirmed by the County Commission pursuant to Section 3.115(4)' be interpreted? | Ambiguity requires applying the last antecedent rule to include appointees not confirmed to board/commission. | Phrase should be read to restrict eligibility to those confirmed to membership or not otherwise aligning with the described appointee. | Ambiguity necessitates construction; plaintiff should be included as eligible. |
| Do contract and promissory estoppel claims fail as a matter of law? | Resolution created a contractual entitlement to extended benefits. | Statutes ordinarily do not create contracts; no clear contractual language in resolution; promissory estoppel unlikely. | Both claims fail; summary disposition for defendant affirmed on these counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lansing Mayor v Pub Serv Comm, 470 Mich 154 (2004) (interpretation of ambiguous statutes and avoidance of surplusage principles)
- Kessler v Kessler, 295 Mich App 54 (2011) (plain meaning governs when language clear; ambiguity leads to construction)
- PIC Maintenance, Inc v Dep’t of Treasury, 293 Mich App 403 (2011) (plain and ordinary meaning; avoid surplusage)
- Studier v Mich Pub Sch Employees’ Retirement Bd, 472 Mich 642 (2005) (strong presumption statutes do not create contractual rights)
- Marrero v McDonnell Douglas Capital Corp, 200 Mich App 438 (1993) (promissory estoppel requires definite promise and detrimental reliance)
- Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16 (2008) (elements of promissory estoppel)
- Shelby Charter Twp v Papesh, 267 Mich App 92 (2005) (interpretation of statutory language; avoid nugatory results)
- Woodman v Kera LLC, 486 Mich 228 (2010) (de novo review standard for summary disposition; statutory interpretation)