Roberta Lee Civello v. Chet's Best Results Landscaping LLC, 324336

In Feb 2014 Roberta Lee Civello slipped and fell in a Wendy’s parking lot in Livonia, MI; she and her husband sued Chet’s Best Results Landscaping LLC, the contractor that provided snow-plowing services at that site.
Chet’s contracted with Wendy’s to plow when snow accumulation reached two inches; the contract expressly excluded salt services and sidewalk clearing and disclaimed responsibility for injuries from slippery conditions.
Plaintiffs alleged harms arising from the icy condition and sought recovery from Chet’s; plaintiffs raised both contract-based (third-party beneficiary) and common-law duty theories.
Chet’s moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) (failure to state a claim); the trial court granted the motion, concluding plaintiffs failed to state a justiciable claim.
Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court used the wrong standard, misapplied third-party-beneficiary principles, misconstrued Fultz and Loweke, and wrongly concluded Chet’s owed no common-law duties to plaintiffs.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding plaintiffs were not intended third-party beneficiaries and Chet’s owed no independent common-law duty to the plaintiffs under the record and governing precedent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Appropriate standard for summary disposition	Trial court applied wrong standard; defendant cited (C)(10) in brief	Motion and relief were brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8); (C)(8) was argued and relied on	Court: No error — (C)(8) was properly applied despite brief language
Third‑party beneficiary status	Plaintiffs (Civello) were intended beneficiaries of the Wendy’s–Chet’s contract (benefit patrons)	Contract shows no intent to benefit patrons; contract disclaims liability for slippery conditions	Court: Plaintiffs are not intended third‑party beneficiaries; third‑party claim fails
Effect of Fultz and Loweke	Plaintiffs argued Fultz/Loweke should allow liability or were misapplied by trial court	Chet’s relied on Fultz to say no duty separate from contract; Loweke does not change third‑party beneficiary analysis	Court: Fultz and Loweke properly applied; they do not save plaintiffs’ third‑party beneficiary claim
Existence of common‑law duty	Plaintiffs asserted Chet’s assumed duties (e.g., building/maintenance codes) and therefore owed duties to patrons	No evidence Chet’s assumed owner’s statutory/common‑law duties; plaintiffs cited no authority or record support	Court: No independent common‑law duty owed to plaintiffs; summary disposition proper

Fultz v. Union-Commerce Assoc., 470 Mich 460 (2004) (contracting party does not owe tort duty separate from contractual obligations unless a distinct common-law duty exists)
Loweke v. Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co., LLC, 489 Mich 157 (2011) (contractual duties do not necessarily extinguish separate common‑law or statutory duties to third parties)
Schmalfeldt v. North Pointe Ins. Co., 469 Mich 422 (2003) (third‑party beneficiary exists only when promisor undertakes promise directly to or for that person)
Brunsell v. City of Zeeland, 467 Mich 293 (2002) (legislative use of "directly" requires contracting parties intend the scope include the third party)