Background
Alan and Christine Gieleghem contracted with Riemer Floors Inc. to remove existing flooring and install new flooring in their home. According to their complaint, Riemer Floors discovered possible asbestos during the work but failed to contain it and continued working, spreading asbestos throughout the home. The Gieleghems alleged that they had to leave while remediation occurred.
The homeowners 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 obligation and that the economic loss doctrine barred the tort claims. It also concluded that amendment would be futile.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of the contract claim because the homeowners identified no contractual term requiring Riemer Floors to test for, contain, or remediate asbestos. The written agreement covered the sale and installation of flooring and removal of existing flooring, but contained no asbestos provision. 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 obligation to test for or remediate asbestos, it had a separate legal duty to use reasonable care and avoid physically harming people or tangible property when it acted. The allegations that its workers discovered possible asbestos, continued working, and spread the contamination 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 plaintiff must identify an actual contractual term that the defendant allegedly violated; a court will not add an asbestos-related duty to an agreement that contains none.
- A service provider may owe a tort duty, separate from its contract, to exercise reasonable care and avoid causing physical harm to people or tangible property.
- The homeowners’ allegations that the flooring company continued working after discovering possible asbestos and spread it through the home were sufficient to survive a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
Why It Matters
The unpublished decision illustrates the distinction Michigan courts draw between failing to perform a contractual promise and performing work in a way that causes physical harm. Even when a contract does not require a contractor to remediate a dangerous condition, the contractor may face negligence liability for allegedly worsening that condition through its affirmative conduct.
The ruling addresses only the sufficiency of the pleadings, not whether Riemer Floors actually spread asbestos or acted negligently. The homeowners must still prove their allegations after remand.