Sedgwick Insurance v. F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Systems, Inc.
47 F. Supp. 3d 536
E.D. Mich.2014Background
- Plaintiff Angela Sarazin, a contract employee at Fagerdala USA–Marysville, suffered a severe hand injury while using a Servo Fly‑Knife Cutter allegedly manufactured by F.A.B.E. Custom Downstream Systems, Inc. (CDS).
- CDS filed affirmative defenses alleging Fagerdala altered/failed to properly equip or maintain the machine and filed a notice of nonparty fault naming Fagerdala and a John Doe plant manager under Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2957 and MCR 2.112(E).
- Sarazin moved to dismiss/strike the notice, arguing employers or co‑employees subject to the Michigan Workers’ Disability Compensation Act (WDCA) exclusive remedy cannot be named as nonparties at fault and that the notice was insufficiently specific.
- Magistrate Judge Grand denied Sarazin’s motion, finding the notice timely and adequate and that employers/co‑employees can be named as nonparties at fault if a duty to the plaintiff exists.
- District Judge Borman reviewed Sarazin’s objection under the Rule 72(a) standards and affirmed the magistrate judge, holding the magistrate’s legal conclusions were consistent with Michigan law and persuasive authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy & timeliness of CDS’s notice of nonparty fault | Notice failed to identify the plant manager and lacked a factual basis; should be stricken under FRCP 12(f) | Notice met MCR 2.112(E) requirements, filed within 91 days, and drew on CDS’s prior affirmative defenses; any identity gaps were addressed in discovery | Court held the notice was timely and adequate; CDS acted with reasonable diligence and Sarazin showed no prejudice, so motion to strike dismissed |
| Whether employer/co‑employee subject to WDCA may be named as nonparty at fault | WDCA exclusive remedy bars fault allocation to employer/co‑employees because they owe no actionable duty in tort | Comparative‑fault statutes require allocation of fault among all who contributed; Romain requires proof of duty before allocating fault, but having WDCA protection does not eliminate the employer’s duty | Court held employer and coworker can be named as nonparties at fault if they owed a duty to plaintiff; Romain requires proof of duty but does not preclude naming employers/co‑employees as nonparties when a duty exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Romain v. Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co., 483 Mich. 18 (Mich. 2009) (proof of duty is required before fault may be apportioned under Michigan comparative‑fault statutes)
- Kopp v. Zigich, 268 Mich. App. 258 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005) (interpreting comparative‑fault statutes to permit naming employers as nonparties at fault; later partially overruled on the duty point)
- White v. Chrysler Corp., 421 Mich. 192 (Mich. 1984) (employer has responsibility for workplace safety but workers’ compensation generally limits tort liability)
- Kessler v. Visteon Corp., 448 F.3d 326 (6th Cir. 2006) (federal courts in diversity apply state substantive law as decided by the state supreme court)