 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Lee v. Edison8/30/2005
UNPUBLISHED
Before: Saad, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
In this wrongful death action, defendant Detroit Edison Company (Edison) appeals the trial court's order that granted summary disposition to cross-defendants on Edison's cross-claim. Edison also challenges the trial court's dismissal of Edison's third-party complaint and its denial of Edison's motion for entry of a default judgment. We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural History
On October 15, 2002, Jose Castro drove a semi tractor-trailer owned by his employer, MAP Transportation Corp., and struck a utility pole while he attempted to make a u-turn in a vacant field. The next day, the downed power lines electrocuted the decedent when he rode his bicycle across the field. The personal representative of decedent's estate brought a wrongful death action against Edison, and alleged that Edison failed to repair or make safe the downed power lines.
Edison filed a third-party complaint against MAP and Castro and alleged that Castro's negligence proximately caused the electrocution. The trial court summarily dismissed the third-party complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(8), and characterized the third-party claim as one for contribution, which the court concluded is no longer a viable claim under Michigan's tort reform legislation. Thereafter, plaintiff amended his complaint to add MAP and Castro as defendants, and Edison filed a cross-claim against MAP and Castro, arguing they were liable to Edison based on theories of allocation of fault, equitable subrogation, and indemnity. MAP and Castro filed a motion to dismiss the cross-claim under MCR 2.116(C)(8). The court initially granted the motion with respect to the claim for allocation only.
On the first day of trial, the parties announced their intention to settle. However, plaintiff informed the trial court that cross-defendants' settlement was contingent on the dismissal of Edison's cross-claim, which Edison refused to do. MAP and Castro then orally renewed their motion for summary disposition. The court granted the motion, thereby dismissing the remaining cross-claims for equitable subrogation and indemnity. MAP then entered a settlement with plaintiff for $200,000. Edison initially argued that its own settlement agreement with plaintiff was contingent on the continuation of the cross-claim. However, Edison then entered a settlement with plaintiff for $1,500,000.
II. Analysis
A. Third-Party Complaint
Edison contends that the trial court erred when it dismissed the third-party complaint because MAP and Castro were liable under MCR 2.204(A)(1). Alternatively, Edison argues that the trial court erred because, in the event that it reached a settlement with plaintiff, its third-party complaint preserved a claim for contribution under MCL 600.2925a. We see no merit in either argument.
We review de novo a trial court's grant of summary disposition based upon a failure to state a claim. Adair v Michigan, 470 Mich 105, 119; 680 NW2d 386 (2004). This issue involves the interpretation of a court rule, which is also reviewed de novo on appeal. St George Greek Orthodox Church v Laupmanis Associates, PC, 204 Mich App 278, 282; 514 NW2d 516 (1994).
MCR 2.204(A)(1) provides that "a defending party, as a third-party plaintiff, may serve a summons and complaint on a person not a party to the action who is or may be liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff's claim." Our Supreme Court has held that the previous version of MCR 2.204 (GCR 1963, 204) did not establish a substantive cause of action and merely provided a procedure for governing third-party practice. Sz
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.
|
|