SB 77 Signed into Law by Governor Snyder

On October 4, 2011, Governor Rick Snyder signed SB 77 into law (now PA 162  of 2011).  As we noted here, the new law solves the problems created by the Michigan Supreme Court's 2006 Ostroth ruling. The new law restores the applicable limitation periods to their previous durations, and restores the long-established rules that govern them.

(R/L: Benedetto Tiseo, Frederick Butters, Gov. Rick Snyder, Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker, and Gary Quesada)

Statute of Limitations: Ostroth Overturned by SB 77, New Law Takes Effect January 1, 2012

By: Gary D. Quesada, Esq

Cavanaugh & Quesada, PLC

One of the most effective defenses to a lawsuit is the statute of limitations. Limitations periods created by statute are grounded in public policy considerations which include encouraging the prompt recovery of damages, penalizing plaintiffs who have not been industrious in pursuing their claims, affording defendants security against stale demands and prolonged fear of litigation, and prevention of fraudulent claims. After a claim accrues (or is alleged to have accrued), if a plaintiff delays too long before bringing suit, the statute of limitations will serve to bar the claim, despite any other considerations.

Before February 2006, Michigan’s design and construction industry was subject to the same statute of limitations system as other businesses. However, in February 2006, the Michigan Supreme Court issued its ruling in Ostroth v Warren Regency, 474 Mich 36; 709 NW2d 589 (2006). Ostroth overruled existing case law and long-established practice, segregated the industry from general limitations law and lengthened all limitations periods specific to the design and construction industry in Michigan. 

The impact of Ostroth was significant.  For instance, according to a survey published by the American Council of Engineering Companies in 2008, Michigan’s statute of limitations for design professionals became the longest in the country. Ostroth also eliminated the rule that the limitation period begins to run when a claim accrues. In practical application, that effect served to double, triple or even quadruple the limitations period for many typical claims. Ostroth also eliminated any identifiable limitations period for incomplete projects. Clearly, the Ostroth decision negatively affected individual design and construction businesses, and the industry as a whole.

As early as the Winter of 2006, Michigan’s design and construction industry organizations began working together to reverse Ostroth by legislation. 

After 5 ½ years of political activity in connection with this effort, SB 77 was finally passed by the Michigan House of Representatives on Tuesday, September 20, 2011.  The vote was 87-21, with broad bi-partisan support. The Senate concurred the next day, and SB 77 is now expected to be signed into law by Governor Rick Snyder.  The new law will take effect January 1, 2012.

SB 77 solves the problems created by Ostroth, restores the applicable limitation periods to their previous durations, and restores the long-established rules that govern them. The period of time that facility owners have to discover latent defects is not affected by SB 77. 

As with any political campaign, teamwork and perseverance were required for success. SB 77 bill sponsor Senator Tonya Schuitmaker (R-Lawton) provided her leadership throughout the process, from introduction through final passage. Industry organizations that supported this successful legislative effort represent all sections of the design and construction industry, including the following:

• American Institute of Architects of Michigan
• American Council of Engineering Companies
• Michigan Society of Professional Engineers 
• American Society of Civil Engineers - Michigan Section
• Michigan Society of Professional Surveyors, 
• AGC of Michigan 
• Michigan Infrastructure and Transportation Association (MITA)
• Construction Association of Michigan (CAM), and 
• Michigan Association of Homebuilders

Gary D. Quesada is a partner with the construction law firm of Cavanaugh & Quesada, PLC.  Mr. Quesada served as the point person for legal issues throughout the campaign to overturn Ostroth, and testified in favor of the bill on numerous occasions before Judiciary Committees in both the Michigan House and Senate. 

For more information see www.MichiganConstructionLaw.com, or e-mail gquesada@cqlawfirm.com.

Michigan Supreme Court Decision Expands Liability Exposure for Contractors

By: Gary D. Quesada, Hon. Aff. AIA, J.D.

Cavanaugh & Quesada, PLC

On July 11, 2011, the Michigan Supreme Court decided the case of Miller-Davis v. Ahrens, __ Mich __ (2011), which held that Michigan’s special statute of repose, MCL 600.5839, does not apply to contract-based construction claims.  This decision means that contractors are at greater risk for lawsuits.

In 1967, Michigan enacted MCL 600.5839, the special statute of repose for claims arising from improvements to real property.  Section 5839 barred all claims for “injuries to persons or property” against architects, engineers and contractors that arose more than six years after “use, occupancy or acceptance” of the improve- ment. 

Originally, the statute was understood to apply only to third-party claims, and Michigan courts so held.  In 1988, Michigan enacted an amendment that was held by several courts to have expanded the statute of repose to include contractual claims as well as third-party claims.  However, the Supreme Court never addressed this issue.

Miller-Davis involved a claim by a general contractor against a subcontractor for breach of contract.  The issue was the construction of a natatorium roof, which the general contractor alleged was improperly constructed by the subcontractor.  The subcontractor argued the claim was brought later than six years after first use, occupancy or acceptance of the improvement, and was therefore “reposed.”  The Michigan Court of Appeals agreed and held the claim was barred.  Plaintiff then sought review by the Michigan Supreme Court.

In the Supreme Court, the plaintiff argued the statute of repose did not apply to its claim, which was based on breach of contract and not an “injury to person or property.” The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and held that the statute of repose “does not apply to a breach of contract claim for a defect in a building improvement.” In making its ruling, the court cited with approval the federal case of Garden City Osteopathic Hosp v HBE Corp, 55 F3d 1126 (CA 6, 1995).

The Miller-Davis decision significantly extends the duration contractors can be sued for building defects. The impact of the case is likely to be that warranty claims by building owners for defective work will be brought long after the building has been occupied. Owners have contracts with their prime contractor, and often have direct contracts with specialty contractors. There is no longer any repose period for claims based on these contracts. By statute, warranty claims may be brought up to 6 years after a breach is discovered.  Therefore, owners may bring suit up to 6 years after discovery of a latent defect, no matter when that discovery occurs.

The Garden City case cited by the Supreme Court is as example of the potential application of Miller-Davis.  Garden City involved an owner’s claim brought against a contractor approximately 21 years after construction.  Contractors should now be more careful to review their contracts and when possible, seek to limit their contractual obligations, including indemnification and warranty provisions, to reasonable durations.

For more information about the Miller-Davis decision and the Michigan statute of repose, you may contact Gary Quesada at Cavanaugh & Quesada, PLC, 1027 S. Washington Ave, Ste A, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Tel: (248) 543-8320. 

Statute of Limitations Bill Passed by House Judiciary Committee

On November 12, 2008, Senate Bill 865, which would revise the statute of limitations for bringing an action against an architect, professional engineer, land surveyor or construction contractor, was unanimously approved by the House Judiciary Committee. Gary Quesada testified before the Committee on behalf of AIA of Michigan, and was joined by ACEC/Michigan Executive Director Ron Brenke, and Ken Lawless, Vice President of Clark Construction and AGC of Michigan Board member, who also testified before the committee in support of the measure.

S.B. 865 was passed out of the Senate in February. This bill was discussed in an earlier post.

For more information about this issue, contact Gary Quesada at Cavanaugh & Quesada, PLC, 306 South Washington, Suite 216, Royal Oak, MI 48067, Tel: (248) 543-8320.

Construction Liens: E. R. Zeiler -- Supreme Court Declines Review

On March 26, 2007, the Michigan Supreme Court DENIED the surety's Application for Leave to Appeal, which leaves standing the Court of Appeals decision reported here on May 28, 2006.

Updated case citation:

E. R. Zeiler Excavating, Inc. v Valenti Trobec & Chandler, Inc., 270 Mich App 639; 717 NW2d 370 (2006), lv app denied, 477 Mich1055; 728 N.W.2d 433, 2007 Mich. LEXIS 548 (Mich. 2007).

Construction Liens: E. R. Zeiler Update

Since the first post on the E. Z. Zeiler decision, the surety (NAS Surety Group) has filed an Application for Leave to Appeal with the Michigan Supreme Court. The application was filed on May 30, 2006 (Docket No. 131297).

This case has also been assigned the following citation:

E. R. Zeiler Excavating, Inc. v Valenti Trobec & Chandler, Inc., 270 Mich App 639; 717 NW2d 370 (2006).