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. They alleged that Riemer’s workers detected possible asbestos during the work but failed to contain it and instead spread asbestos throughout the home, forcing the Gieleghems to leave while remediation occurred.
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 obligation and that the tort claims merely restated the contract claim and were barred by the economic loss doctrine. The court also declined to permit amendment of the complaint as futile.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the contract claim because the homeowners did not identify any contractual term requiring Riemer to test for, contain, abate, 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 failed to brief that issue on appeal and therefore abandoned it.
The court reversed dismissal of the negligence claim. Although Riemer had no contractual duty to remediate asbestos, it had a separate legal duty to exercise reasonable care and avoid physically harming people or tangible property when it acted. The allegations that Riemer continued working after discovering possible asbestos and thereby spread it throughout the home 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 breached obligation.
- A contractor may owe a tort duty to avoid making a dangerous property condition worse even when its contract does not require it to remedy that condition.
- The homeowners sufficiently pleaded negligence by alleging that the flooring company continued working after detecting possible asbestos and spread it through the home.
- An appellate issue that is not adequately briefed is abandoned, as occurred with the homeowners’ nuisance claim.
Why It Matters
The decision distinguishes a failure to perform a contractual promise from affirmative conduct that allegedly causes physical harm. A service provider may face negligence liability for worsening a hazardous condition even when the parties’ agreement contains no promise to inspect for or remediate that hazard.
The ruling addresses only the sufficiency of the pleadings, not whether Riemer actually spread asbestos or acted negligently. The homeowners must prove those allegations after remand.