 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Ogden Martin Systems of Dent County3/12/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiffs appeal as of right from a trial court order that granted all defendants summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10) on the basis that the applicable limitations period barred plaintiffs' complaint. We affirm.
In October 1987, plaintiffs Ogden Martin Systems of Kent County, Inc. and Kent County contracted to build a solid waste-to-energy facility. Ogden Martin then hired defendant Granger Construction Company as the project's general contractor, and Granger in turn subcontracted with the other defendants to perform work on the facility's construction. In February 1994, one facility building collapsed and another partially collapsed.
Plaintiff Federal Insurance Company reimbursed Ogden Martin and Kent County for a large amount of the damages to the facility, and plaintiffs entered a subrogation agreement permitting Federal Insurance to pursue the other plaintiffs' claims against defendants.
On October 31, 1995, plaintiffs filed their original complaint setting forth numerous counts alleging defendants' breach of contract, breach of warranties and negligence. Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing that the six-year limitations period within MCL 600.5839(1) barred plaintiffs' claims because the period began to run when the facility first was occupied, used or accepted, which defendants suggested had occurred by September 1989. Plaintiffs countered that neither occupancy nor use nor acceptance preceded October 31, 1989, or alternatively that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding when they first occupied, used and accepted the facility. The trial court found that undisputed facts warranted granting defendants' motion on the basis of MCL 600.5839(1).
Plaintiffs challenge the propriety of the trial court's grant of summary disposition, which this Court reviews de novo. Spiek v Dep't of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998). In reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7), we accept the plaintiff's well- pleaded allegations as true and construe them in the plaintiff's favor, unless the movant has submitted documentation contradicting the contents of the complaint. This Court must consider all relevant documentary evidence filed or submitted by the parties. Pusakulich v City of Ironwood, 247 Mich App 80, 82; 635 NW2d 323 (2001). When no facts are in dispute, the issue whether a plaintiff's claim is statutorily barred is a question of law for the Court. Witherspoon v Guilford, 203 Mich App 240, 243; 511 NW2d 720 (1994). Summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) similarly is appropriate when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Auto-Owners Ins Co v Allied Adjusters & Appraisers, Inc, 238 Mich App 394, 397; 605 NW2d 685 (1999).
We find that the trial court correctly granted defendants summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10). The relevant limitations period provides in pertinent part as follows:
(1) No person may maintain any action to recover damages for any injury to property, real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained as a result of such injury, against any state licensed architect or professional engineer performing or furnishing the design or supervision of construction of the improvement, or against any contractor making the improvement, more than 6 years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement . . . . [MCL 600.5839(1) (emphasis added).]
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|