Background
Alan and Christine Gieleghem contracted with 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’s workers discovered possible asbestos during the work but failed to contain it and continued working, spreading asbestos throughout the house and forcing the Gieleghems to leave during remediation.
The Gieleghems sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nuisance. The Oakland Circuit Court dismissed all three claims with prejudice under MCR 2.116(C)(8), reasoning that the contract imposed no asbestos-related duties and that the economic loss doctrine barred the tort claims. It also denied the Gieleghems an opportunity to amend their complaint.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim because the contract contained no provision requiring Riemer to test for, contain, remove, or remediate asbestos. The plaintiffs therefore failed to identify a contractual term that Riemer allegedly breached. The court also affirmed dismissal of the nuisance claim because the plaintiffs did not brief that issue on appeal and thus abandoned it.
The court reversed dismissal of the negligence claim. Although Riemer had no contractual obligation to test for or remediate asbestos, it had a separate legal duty to exercise reasonable care and avoid physically harming people or tangible property. The allegations that Riemer discovered possible asbestos, continued working, and spread it 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 court left the plaintiffs free to seek permission in the trial court to amend their complaint, with the trial court to decide any such request in the first instance.
Key Takeaways
- A breach-of-contract claim fails when the plaintiff cannot identify a contractual term covering the alleged obligation.
- A service provider may owe a tort duty, independent of its contract, to use reasonable care and avoid making a dangerous physical condition worse.
- The court held only that the complaint sufficiently stated a negligence claim; it did not determine whether asbestos was actually spread or whether Riemer was ultimately liable.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a failure to perform a contractual obligation from affirmative conduct that allegedly causes physical harm. Even when a contract does not require a contractor to remediate a discovered hazard, the contractor may face negligence liability for continuing its work in a manner that spreads the hazard and damages tangible property.
The opinion also underscores that the economic loss doctrine does not automatically defeat a tort claim merely because the parties have a contract. Courts must determine whether the plaintiff alleges breach of a legal duty separate and distinct from the defendant’s contractual promises.