Terry James Mahrle Trust v. Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership
331221
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 15, 2017Background
- Oil spill July 2010 led Enbridge to lease a Marshall building for wildlife rescue; two leases in 2010–2011; building housed animals, water tanks, and related moisture; experts completed remediation before vacating June 2011; plaintiffs alleged mold, moisture, and other defects and sought damages for breach of contract and waste; trial court dismissed negligence, ruled no breach or waste, and plaintiffs appeal.
- Enbridge argues building returned to pre-lease condition; mold/smoke/attic moisture largely preexisting or remediated; final walkthrough credibility contested; damages not proven.
- Trial involved extensive expert testimony on mold, moisture, and building condition; Anthos testified as expert in industrial hygiene; trial court allowed the testimony; defendant prevailed.
- Court reviewed for clear error on factual findings and de novo on contract interpretation; evidence supported trial court’s conclusion Enbridge returned building to pre-lease condition and used building within lease terms.
- Appellants challenge expert admission and post-trial findings, but the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Anthos could testify as an expert despite discovery issues | Kingsley struck Anthos; Lincoln allowed amendment | No willful violation; actual notice; not prejudicial | No abuse of discretion; Anthos properly admitted as expert |
| Whether Anthos’s opinions based on Aerobiology data were admissible under MRE 703 | Aerobiology data improper hearsay | Data admitted under MRE 803(6) business records | Trial court did not abuse; data admissible as basis for opinion |
| Whether Anthos was qualified to testify about mold, health, and building structure | Anthos lacked construction/medical qualifications | Industrial hygiene expertise suffices; credentials ample | Anthos qualified under MRE 702; no reversible error |
| Whether Enbridge breached the lease by failing to restore the building to pre-lease condition | Building not restored; attic mold; improper repairs | Building restored to pre-lease condition; remedial work adequate | No clear error; no breach proven; building returned to pre-lease condition |
| Whether Enbridge’s use of the building violated the lease/use provisions | Housing turtles and animal hospital expanded use | Use consistent with animal rescue; no improper change | Use within lease; no township-permit issue required; no damages shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapdelaine v Sochocki, 247 Mich App 167 (2001) (standard of review for factual findings; deference to credibility)
- Alan Custom Homes, Inc v Krol, 256 Mich App 505 (2003) (clear error/de novo review; damages and contract interpretation principles)
- Dorman v Twp of Clinton, 269 Mich App 638 (2006) (abuse of discretion standard for discovery and evidentiary rulings)
- Tisbury v Armstrong, 194 Mich App 19 (1991) (discovery sanctions and witness list considerations)
- Prentis Family Found v Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Inst, 266 Mich App 39 (2005) (law of the case; reconsideration by successor judges allowed)