Background

• The case involves multiple plaintiffs (Krist Oil Company, Quality Rentals of Houghton, and others) alleging injury not directly caused by a defective or unsafe condition of an improvement to real property constructed by a contractor (MJO Contracting, Inc.)
• SEMCO Energy, Inc. and MJO Contracting, Inc. are key defendants, with SEMCO as a cross-plaintiff and MJO as a cross-defendant.
• The dispute centers on Michigan's statute of repose, MCL 600.5839(1), which limits the period for claims arising from defective or unsafe conditions in improvements to real property made by contractors.
• The trial court ruled in a manner consistent with the statute’s text, but that decision conflicted with controlling appellate precedent.
• The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, applying the precedent set by Abbott v John E. Green Co., even though it questioned the correctness of that precedent.
• The concurring opinion critiques Abbott’s logic and calls for the Michigan Supreme Court to revisit the issue.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Abbott v. John E. Green Co., 233 Mich App 194 (repose statute applies broadly to claims about workmanship, not just finished improvement)
• Pitsch v. ESE Mich, Inc., 233 Mich App 578 (distinguishes between tangible improvements and intangible labor)
• Pendzsu v. Beazer East, Inc., 219 Mich App 405 (statute of repose protects contractors from stale claims, defines improvement)
• Witherspoon v. Guilford, 203 Mich App 240 (prior case discussing purpose and limits of repose statute)
• Ostroth v. Warren Regency, GP, 474 Mich 36 (overrules prior limitations, cited for clarifying repose statute application)
• O’Brien v. Hazelet & Erdal, 410 Mich 1 (interprets purpose of statute of repose for improvements to real property)