Ostroth v. Warren Regency, G.P., L.L.C.

• Decision Date: 01 February 2006
• Docket Number: Docket No. 126859, Calendar No. 4.
• Citation: Ostroth v. Warren Regency, G.P., L.L.C., 709 N.W.2d 589, 474 Mich. 36 (Mich. 2006)
• Parties: Ellen M. OSTROTH and Thane Ostroth, Plaintiffs, and Jennifer L. Hudock and Brian D. Hudock, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. WARREN REGENCY, G.P., L.L.C., and Warren Regency Limited Partnership, Defendants, and Edward Schulak, Hobbs & Black, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

709 N.W.2d 589

474 Mich. 36

Ellen M. OSTROTH and Thane Ostroth, Plaintiffs, and Jennifer L. Hudock and Brian D. Hudock, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.WARREN REGENCY, G.P., L.L.C., and Warren Regency Limited Partnership, Defendants, and Edward Schulak, Hobbs & Black, Inc., Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 126859, Calendar No. 4.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued October 19, 2005.

Decided February 1, 2006.

Donnelly W. Hadden, P.C.(by Donnelly W. Hadden), Ann Arbor, and Ball & Ball, L.L.P.(by Bettie K. Ball), Mt. Clemens, for Jennifer L. and Brian D. Hudock.

Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C.(by Ronald S. Lederman), Southfield, for Edward Schulak, Hobbs & Black, Inc.

Thomas M. Keranen & Associates, P.C.(by Frederick F. Butters), Bloomfield Hills, for American Institute of Architects, Michigan, amicus curiae.

Kerr, Russell and Weber, P.L.C.(by James R. Case, Joanne Geha Swanson, and Michael A. Sneyd), Detroit, for ACEC/Michigan, Inc.; Southeastern Michigan Chapter NECA, Inc.; Michigan Roofing Contractors Association, Inc.; and Southeastern Michigan Roofing Contractors Association, Inc., amici curiae.

Thomas M. Keranen & Associates, P.C.(by Thomas M. Keranen and Peter J. Cavanaugh) Bloomfield Hills, for Associated General Contractors of America Greater Detroit Chapter, Inc., and Michigan Chapter Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., amici curiae.

Thomas M. Keranen & Associates, P.C.(by Gary D. Quesada), Bloomfield Hills, for Integrated Designs, Inc., amicus curiae.

Floyd E. Allen & Associates(by Corey D. Grandmaison), Detroit, for Ecorse Board of Education.

Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C.(by Michael J. Asher), Southfield, for the Construction Association of Michigan, Sheet Metal & Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Great Lakes Fabricators and Erectors Association, and Plumbing and Mechanical Contractors of Detroit.

Sullivan, Ward, Asher & Patton, P.C.(by Christopher B. McMahon), Southfield, and Thomas M. Keranen & Associates, P.C.(by Gary D. Quesada), Bloomfield Hills, for GMB Architects-Engineers, Inc., amici curiae.

OPINION

WEAVER, J.

This architectural malpractice case poses the issue whether MCL 600.5839 is only a statute of repose, in which case MCL 600.5805(6) or (10) supplies a shorter limitations period, or is itself both a statute of repose and a statute of limitations.The Court of Appeals concluded that § 5839 is both a statute of repose and a statute of limitations and thus the plaintiff's cause of action is not time-barred.¹We agree and accordingly affirm that decision and remand the matter to the circuit court.

FACTS

In April 1998, defendantEdward Schulak, Hobbs & Black, Inc., architects and consultants, was the architect in a renovation project, designing renovations for office spaces at 12222 East Thirteen Mile Road in Warren, Michigan.PlaintiffJennifer L. Hudock worked in the offices from April 24, 1998 through August 24, 1998.Plaintiff alleges that during that time she was exposed to environmental hazards such as fungus, mold, bacteria, formaldehyde, and carbon dioxide as a result of the renovations to the building's heating, cooling, ventilation, and plumbing systems.She claims that she sustained personal injuries as a result of environmental hazards arising from the renovation of her workplace.²

Plaintiff initiated this action for damages on May 10, 2000.In her first amended complaint filed November 14, 2000, plaintiff alleged that defendant-architect negligently exposed plaintiff to a hazardous environment that caused injury and increased the risk of injury in the future.Defendant first moved for summary disposition, challenging the merits of plaintiff's claim.The circuit court then allowed defendant to amend its affirmative defenses to include the claim that plaintiff's suit was time-barred by the two-year limitations period of MCL 600.5805(6).

The circuit court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, holding that the two-year limitations period for malpractice claims of MCL 600.5805(6) applied.However, the Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the matter to the circuit court, holding that the six-year limitations period of MCL 600.5839(1) applies to plaintiff's action for damages.

We granted defendant's application for leave to appeal and directed that the parties include among the issues to be briefed

(1) whether MCL 600.5839(1) precludes application of the statutes of limitations prescribed by MCL 600.5805 and, if not, (2) which statute of limitations, MCL 600.5805(6) or MCL 600.5805(10), is applicable to the claim asserted against defendantEdward Schulak, Hobbs & Black, Inc., in this case.[³]

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo a trial court's decision on a motion for summary disposition.Spiek v. Dep't of Transportation,456 Mich. 331, 337, 572 N.W.2d 201(1998).This case involves a question of statutory interpretation, which this Court also reviews de novo.Oade v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co.,465 Mich. 244, 250-251, 632 N.W.2d 126(2001).

ANALYSIS

A person cannot commence an action for damages for injuries to a person or property unless the complaint is filed within the periods prescribed by MCL 600.5805.Gladych v. New Family Homes, Inc.,468 Mich. 594, 598, 664 N.W.2d 705(2003).MCL 600.5805(1) provides:

A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to persons or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section.

The several subsections of MCL 600.5805 define periods of limitations for various types of actions to recover damages for injuries to persons or property.

Relevant to this case, MCL 600.5805(6) provides for a two-year period of limitations for actions charging malpractice, MCL 600.5805(10) provides a three-year period of limitations for general negligence actions, and MCL 600.5805(14) addresses the period of limitations for an action for damages involving a state-licensed architect and an improvement to real property.⁴The parties dispute the effect and proper interpretation of MCL 600.5805(14) and MCL 600.5839(1).

When interpreting statutes, "we presume that the Legislature intended the meaning clearly expressed. . . ."DiBenedetto v. West Shore Hosp.,461 Mich. 394, 402, 605 N.W.2d 300(2000).Judicial construction is not required or permitted if the text of the statute is unambiguous.Id.

MCL 600.5805(14) was added to MCL 600.5805 in 1988.⁵Subsection 5805(14) provides:

The period of limitations for an action against a state licensed architect, professional engineer, land surveyor, or contractor based on an improvement to real property shall be as provided in section 5839.

MCL 600.5839(1) in turn specifies a six-year period of limitations that begins to run "after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement. . . ."

MCL 600.5839(1) was enacted twenty years before MCL 600.5805(14).⁶MCL 600.5839(1) currently provides in full:

No person may maintain any action to recover damages for any injury to property real or personal, or for bodily injury or wrongful death, arising out of the defective and unsafe condition of an improvement to real property, nor any action for contribution or indemnity for damages sustained as a result of such injury, against any state licensed architect or professional engineer performing or furnishing the design or supervision of construction of the improvement, or against any contractor making the improvement, more than 6 years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement, or 1 year after the defect is discovered or should have been discovered, provided that the defect constitutes the proximate cause of the injury or damage for which the action is brought and is the result of gross negligence on the part of the contractor or licensed architect or professional engineer.However, no such action shall be maintained more than 10 years after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement.

Defendant contends that the six-year period of MCL 600.5839(1) is a statute of repose that operates in addition to the shorter periods of limitations in MCL 600.5805(6) and (10).⁷In other words, defendant claims that when an action arises within the six-year period specified by MCL 600.5839(1), the periods of limitations in MCL 600.5805 still apply.The Court of Appeals disagreed, however, holding that MCL 600.5839(1) is both a statute of limitations and a statute of repose so that an action for damages involving architects can be filed at any time within six years of the occupancy of the completed improvement.

This Court first addressed MCL 600.5839(1) in O'Brien v. Hazelet & Erdal,410 Mich. 1, 299 N.W.2d 336(1980).In O'Brien,this Court upheld the constitutionality of MCL 600.5839(1) and described the statute's operation as follows:

[T]he instant statute is both one of limitation and one of repose.For actions which accrue within six years from occupancy, use, or acceptance of the completed improvement, the statute prescribes the time within which such actions may be brought and thus acts as a statute of limitations.When more than six years from such time have elapsed before an injury is sustained, the statute prevents a cause of action from ever accruing.[⁸]

Regarding the purpose of the statute, O'Brien stated: "The Legislature chose to limit the liability of architects and engineers in order to relieve them of the potential burden of defending claims brought long after completion of the improvement. . . ."⁹

Despite O'Brien's statement¹⁰ that MCL 600.5839(1)"acts as a statute of limitations" for claims arising within "six years from occupancy, use, or acceptance of the completed improvement,"defendant argues...