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 detected possible asbestos after beginning the work but failed to follow appropriate containment procedures and instead spread asbestos throughout the house. The Gieleghems alleged that they had to leave the home while remediation occurred.
The Gieleghems sued for breach of contract, negligence, and nuisance. The Oakland Circuit Court granted Riemer Floors summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8), concluding that the contract imposed no asbestos-related obligation and that the tort claims merely restated the contract claim and were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The court dismissed the complaint with prejudice and declined to permit an amendment as futile.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim because the contract contained no provision requiring Riemer Floors to test for, contain, or remediate asbestos. The plaintiffs therefore failed to identify a contractual term that the company 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 Floors had no contractual duty to address asbestos, it had a separate legal duty to exercise reasonable care and avoid physically harming persons or tangible property when performing its work. The allegations that its workers continued working after discovering possible asbestos and thereby spread the material throughout the house sufficiently alleged defective performance that made the home’s condition worse. The court remanded for further proceedings and left any renewed request to amend the complaint for the trial court to consider.
Key Takeaways
- A breach-of-contract claim cannot proceed without an identified contractual term imposing the allegedly violated duty.
- A contractor may owe a tort duty independent of its contract to use reasonable care and avoid causing physical harm to people or property.
- The alleged spread of asbestos after its discovery stated a negligence claim at the pleading stage, even though the contract imposed no asbestos-remediation obligation.
- An appellate issue that is not adequately briefed is abandoned.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a failure to perform a contractual promise from negligent performance that affirmatively causes physical harm. A service provider may avoid contract liability where the agreement does not cover a hazardous condition yet still face negligence liability if its conduct worsens that condition and damages tangible property.
The ruling is limited to the sufficiency of the pleadings: the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and expressly did not determine whether Riemer Floors actually spread asbestos or otherwise acted negligently.