Miller-Davis Co. v. Ahrens Construction Inc.
489 Mich. 355
| Mich. | 2011Background
- Miller-Davis Co v Ahrens Constr involves a dispute over a construction contract and whether MCL 600.5839(1) (statute of repose) applies to breach of contract claims.
- Plaintiff Miller-Davis (general contractor) contracted with Ahrens Construction to install a natatorium roof; NMP moisture problem emerged after roof installation and persisted through 2003.
- Temporary occupancy occurred June 11, 1999; roof installed before that date; corrective work was required; plaintiff ultimately performed corrective work in fall 2003.
- In May 2005, Miller-Davis sued Ahrens for breach of contract and indemnity for corrective work; Court of Appeals held MCL 600.5839(1) barred the contract claims and remanded for judgment for defendant.
- The Michigan Supreme Court held MCL 600.5839(1) does not apply to breach of contract actions; MCL 600.5807(8) governs contract actions; case remanded to resolve accrual date and other issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether MCL 600.5839(1) applies to contract actions. | Miller-Davis argues 5807 governs contract actions; 5839 does not apply. | Ahrens contends 5839 governs all improvements-related actions, including contract claims. | 5839(1) does not apply to contract actions. |
| What is the applicable limitations period for this breach of contract claim? | Miller-Davis argues 6-year limit under 5807(8) controls. | Ahrens argues 5839(1) governs, potentially barring the claim. | Six-year period for contract actions applies; 5839(1) is inapplicable. |
| When did the plaintiff’s action accrue for accrual purposes under 5807(8)? | Action accrues when the contract breach occurs. | Remanded to Court of Appeals to resolve accrual date and other remaining issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Huhtala v Travelers Ins Co, 401 Mich 118 (1977) (distinguishes tort vs. contract limitations based on nature/origin of claim)
- Garden City Osteopathic Hosp v HBE Corp, 55 F3d 1126 (6th Cir. 1995) (applies Huhtala approach to 5839(1) in a contract context (persuasive))
- Michigan Millers Mut Ins Co v West Detroit Bldg Co, 196 Mich App 367; 494 NW2d 1 (1992) (expanded 5839(1) to contract actions (overruled))
- Travelers Ins Co v Guardian Alarm Co of Mich, 231 Mich App 473; 596 NW2d 760 (1998) (cited in rejecting expansion of 5839 to contract claims)
- O’Brien v Hazelet & Erdal, 410 Mich 1; 299 NW2d 336 (1980) (legislative intent; 5839 targets tort claims arising from defective improvements)
- City of Marysville v Pate, Hirn & Bogue, Inc, 154 Mich App 655; 397 NW2d 859 (1986) (limits 5839 to tort-like defective-improvement claims)