Case Information
*1 S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N C O U R T O F A P P E A L S ESTATE OF SUSAN K. ARRINGTON, by Co- UNPUBLISHED Personal Representatives SARA ARRINGTON July 20, 2017 LACAVA and MATTHEW ARRINGTON
Plaintiff-Appellant, v No. 332523
Lake Circuit Court COUNTY OF LAKE, PALOMA INDUSTRIES LC No. 14-008636-NO OF NAGOYA JAPAN, RHEEM
MANUFACTURING, EMERSON ELECTRIC
COMPANY, FISHER CONTROLS
INTERNATIONAL, INC., GRUNDFOS PUMPS
CORP, TJERNLUND PRODUCTS, INC., A O
SMITH CORP, REGAL BELOIT ELECTRIC
MOTORS, INC., MICHAEL ELLIS, STEPHEN R.
BOEHRINGER, TRECHA BROTHERS SUPPLY
COMPANY, INC., GAS & LUBE EQUIPMENT
REPAIR, INC., RESIDENTIAL IMAGES, INC.,
FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY OF
MICHIGAN, MICHAEL DEAN GREEN, GREEN
CONSTRUCTION, CRYSTAL FLASH LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP OF MICHIGAN,
Defendants,
and
PHELPS PLUMBING & HEATING, INC., NO-
CHE-MO, INC., HERBERT B. PHELPS, also
known as BRADLEY PHELPS, DAVID A.
SHARLOW and KEVIN G. ELLIOT,
Defendants-Appellees. Before: F ORT H OOD , P.J., and C AVANAGH and R ONAYNE K RAUSE , JJ.
R ONAYNE K RAUSE , J., ( dissenting ).
-1-
While I agree, generally, with the analysis of the majority, I simply cannot agree that there is not a material question of fact regarding what type of work was completed in plaintiff’s decedent’s home in October of 2008. In fact the majority states, “It also appears from the record that a representative from Phelps Plumbing and Heating, Inc. visited plaintiff’s decedent’s home in October of 2008, apparently to perform additional work, but the specific nature of the work is unclear from the record.” Although there was in invoice for this date, there is no information regarding what work was performed. Therefore, the granting of summary disposition was premature in the absence of any evidence regarding what worked was performed on that date.
If this work resulted in the installation of the defective flue, then this lawsuit was filed within the statute of limitations. There is simply no way to decide on the record below if this is when the defective flue was installed, so it may have been in October, 2008. If that is the case, plaintiff’s decedent’s expert opinion would make clear this case should go forward.
I would remand this case to have the trial court make a determination regarding what work took place in October, 2008.
/s/ Amy Ronayne Krause
-2-