Mays v. Governor, No. 157335
| Decision Date | 29 July 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 157337,No. 157335,No. 157340,No. 157336,No. 157342,No. 157341 |
| Parties | MELISSA MAYS, MICHAEL ADAM MAYS, JACQUELINE PEMBERTON, KEITH JOHN PEMBERTON, ELNORA CARTHAN, RHONDA KELSO, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellants, and DARNELL EARLEY and JERRY AMBROSE, Defendants-Appellees. MELISSA MAYS, MICHAEL ADAM MAYS, JACQUELINE PEMBERTON, KEITH JOHN PEMBERTON, ELNORA CARTHAN, RHONDA KELSO, and ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GOVERNOR OF MICHIGAN, STATE OF MICHIGAN, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendants-Appellees, and DARNELL EARLEY and JERRY AMBROSE, Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
This syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.
Reporter of Decisions: Kathryn L. Loomis
Melissa Mays and other water users and property owners in Flint, Michigan (plaintiffs) brought a class action in the Court of Claims against defendants Governor Rick Snyder, the state of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (the MDEQ), and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (collectively, the state defendants) and against defendants Darnell Earley and Jerry Ambrose (the city defendants), who are former emergency managers for the city of Flint. Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that from 1964 through late April 2014, the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) supplied Flint water users with their water, which was drawn from Lake Huron. On April 16, 2013, the Governor authorized a contract to explore the development of an alternative water delivery system, and at the time of the contract, the Governor and various state officials knew that the Flint River would serve as an interim source of drinking water for the residents of Flint. Plaintiffs alleged that the Governor and these officials had knowledge of a 2011 study commissioned by Flint officials that cautioned against the use of Flint River water as a source of drinking water. On April 25, 2014, under the direction of Earley and the MDEQ, Flint switched its water source from the DWSD to the Flint River, and Flint water users began receiving Flint River water from their taps. Plaintiffs alleged that the switch occurred despite the fact that the water treatment plant's laboratory and water-quality supervisor warned officials that the water treatment plant was not fit to begin operations and despite the fact that the 2011 study had noted that the water treatment plant would require facility upgrades costing millions of dollars. Less than a month after the switch, state officials began to receive complaints from Flint water users about the quality of the water coming out of their taps. In June 2014, residents complained that they were becoming ill after drinking the tap water. In October 2014, General Motors announced that it was discontinuing the use of Flint water in its Flint plant due to concerns about the corrosive nature of the water, and in the same month, Flint officials expressed concern about a legionellosis outbreak and possible links between the outbreak and Flint's switch to the river water. In February 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) advised the MDEQ that the Flint water supply was contaminated with iron at levels so high that the testing instruments could not measure the exact level, and in the same month, the MDEQ was advised that black sediment found in some of the tap water was lead. Plaintiffs alleged that during this time, state officials failed to take any significant remedial measures to address the growing health threat and instead continued to downplay the health risk, advising Flint water users that it was safe to drink the tap water while simultaneously arranging for state employees in Flint to drink water from water coolers installed in state buildings. Additionally, plaintiffs alleged that the MDEQ advised the EPA that Flint was using a corrosion-control additive with knowledge that the statement was false. Through the summer and fall of 2015, state officials allegedly continued to cover up the health emergency, discredit reports that confirmed the presence of lead in the water system and a spike in the percentage of Flint children with elevated blood lead levels, and advise the public that the drinking water was safe despite knowledge to the contrary. In early October 2015, the Governor acknowledged that the Flint water supply was contaminated with dangerous levels of lead. On October 8, 2015, the Governor ordered Flint to reconnect to the DWSD, and the reconnection occurred on October 16, 2015. On January 21, 2016, plaintiffs brought a four-count class-action complaint against all defendants in the Court of Claims for state-created danger, violation of plaintiffs' due-process right to bodily integrity, denial of fair and just treatment during executive investigations, and unconstitutional taking via inverse condemnation. The state and city defendants separately moved for summary disposition on all four counts, arguing that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy the statutory notice requirements in MCL 600.6431 of the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6401 et seq., failed to allege facts to establish a constitutional violation for which a judicially inferred damages remedy is appropriate, and failed to allege facts to establish the elements of any of their claims. The Court of Claims, MARK T. BOONSTRA, J., granted defendants' motions for summary disposition on plaintiffs' causes of action under the state-created-danger doctrine and the Fair and Just Treatment Clause of the 1963 Michigan Constitution, art 1, § 17, after concluding that neither cause of action is cognizable under Michigan law. However, the Court of Claims denied summary disposition on all of defendants' remaining grounds, concluding that plaintiffs satisfied the statutory notice requirements and adequately pleaded claims of inverse condemnation and a violation of their right to bodily integrity. In Court of Appeals Docket No. 335555, the state defendants appealed, and the city defendants and plaintiffs cross-appealed; in Court of Appeals Docket No. 335725, the Court of Appeals granted the city defendants' application for leave to appeal; and in Court of Appeals Docket No. 335726, the Court of Appeals granted the state defendants' application for leave to appeal. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals. In its judgment, the Court of Appeals, JANSEN, P.J., and FORT HOOD, J. (RIORDAN, J., dissenting), affirmed the Court of Claims' rulings on the statutory notice requirements, plaintiffs' claim of violation of their right to bodily integrity, and plaintiffs' claim of inverse condemnation. 323 Mich App 1 (2018). Both the state defendants and the city defendants sought leave to appeal in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted the applications for leave to appeal. 503 Mich 1030 (2019).
In a lead opinion by Justice BERNSTEIN, joined by Chief Justice MCCORMACK and Justice CAVANAGH, and a separate opinion by Justice VIVIANO, concurring in part and dissenting in part, the Supreme Court held:
Plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a claim of inverse condemnation to survive a motion for summary disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8). Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and accepting their factual allegations as true, the pleadings established that defendants' actions were a substantial cause of the decline in plaintiffs' property value, that defendants took affirmative actions directed at plaintiffs' property, and that plaintiffs suffered a unique or special injury different in kind, not simply in degree, from the harm suffered by all persons similarly situated. While state and municipal agencies performing governmental functions are generally immune from tort liability, the government may voluntarily subject itselfto liability, which also means that it may place conditions or limitations on the liability imposed. One condition on the right to sue state governmental agencies is the notice provision of the Court of Claims Act, MCL 600.6431. But it would be premature to grant summary disposition regarding the inverse-condemnation claim on the basis of the six-month notice period because questions of fact remain as to when plaintiffs' claims accrued.
Court of Appeals judgment regarding plaintiffs' inverse-condemnation claim expressly affirmed; Court of Appeals judgment otherwise affirmed by equal division, including with regard to whether plaintiffs presented a cognizable claim for violation of their right to bodily integrity under Michigan's Due Process Clause; case remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings.
In the lead opinion, Justice BERNSTEIN, joined by Chief Justice MCCORMACK and Justice CAVANAGH, stated that plaintiffs adequately alleged a claim of inverse condemnation. A plaintiff alleging inverse condemnation must establish that the government's actions were a substantial cause of the decline of the property's value and that the government abused its powers in affirmative action directly aimed at the property. The right to just compensation in the context of an inverse-condemnation suit for diminution in value exists only when the landowner can allege a unique or special injury, i.e., an injury that is different in kind, not simply in degree, from the harm suffered by all persons similarly situated. In this case, plaintiffs met the first element of an inverse-condemnation claim because they alleged that switching the water source from the DWSD to the Flint River resulted in physical damage to pipes, service lines, and water heaters and that the contaminated water limited the use of their property and substantially impaired its value and...
To continue reading
Request your trial