Background
Alan and Christine Gieleghem hired Riemer Floors Inc. to sell them new flooring, remove their existing flooring, and install the replacement flooring in their home. According to the complaint, Riemer Floors discovered possible asbestos during the work but continued without containing or assessing the contamination, spreading asbestos throughout the house and forcing the homeowners to leave during remediation.
The homeowners sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nuisance. The Oakland Circuit Court dismissed all three claims under Michigan Court Rule 2.116(C)(8), concluding that the contract imposed no asbestos-related duty and that the economic loss doctrine barred the tort claims. It also denied the homeowners an opportunity to amend their complaint as futile.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the contract claim because the homeowners did not identify any contractual provision requiring Riemer Floors to test for, contain, or remediate asbestos. The contract addressed the sale, removal, and installation of flooring but contained no asbestos-related obligation. The court also affirmed dismissal of the nuisance claim because the homeowners did not brief that issue on appeal and therefore abandoned it.
The court reversed dismissal of the negligence claim. Although Riemer Floors had no contractual duty to test for or remediate asbestos, it had an independent legal duty to exercise reasonable care and avoid physically harming people or tangible property. The allegations that its workers discovered possible asbestos, continued working, and spread the material throughout the home sufficiently alleged defective performance that made the home’s condition worse.
The court remanded for further proceedings on negligence. Because that claim was reinstated, the appellate court left the homeowners free to seek permission from the trial court to amend their complaint, with the trial court to decide that request in the first instance.
Key Takeaways
- A contract claim fails when the plaintiff cannot identify a contractual term imposing the allegedly breached duty.
- A service provider may face negligence liability for affirmative conduct that causes physical harm even when its contract does not address the hazardous condition involved.
- An issue insufficiently briefed on appeal is abandoned, and the lower court’s ruling on that issue may be affirmed without reaching its merits.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes failure to perform a contractual promise from negligent performance that affirmatively causes physical harm. A contractor may have no contractual obligation to remediate a hazard yet still owe an independent duty not to worsen that hazard while performing agreed work.
The ruling also underscores that the economic loss doctrine does not automatically defeat a tort claim merely because the parties have a contract. Courts must examine whether the alleged duty and harm arise independently from the contract.