A towing company contracted by a municipal township was not entitled to protection under the Governmental Tort Liability Act , or GTLA, after a homeowner claimed it was negligent or grossly negligent in removing vehicles from his property, a Michigan Court of Appeals panel ruled, reversing an award of summary disposition for the defendant.
Utica Van Dyke Service LLC, which offers vehicle removal and towing services, entered into an agreement with Shelby Township to help the Shelby Township Police Department, or STPD, with vehicle removal, impounding and towing, among other things.
The towing company provided labor and materials to perform services requested by the township, but township employees directly supervised the company when it provided those services.
Tom Djonovic pleaded responsible to an ordinance violation for improperly storing unregistered and inoperable vehicles on his property in November 2020. The Macomb County Circuit Court entered an order authorizing the township to enter the property and remove the vehicles.
The towing company removed several vehicles from Djonovic’s property under the direct supervision of a police officer in December 2020. Also present during the removal were Djonovic, other officers and township representatives.
Djonovic filed a complaint against the towing company. He claimed the company was negligent or grossly negligent when it removed the vehicles by using overweight towing equipment that caused significant damage to his driveway and landscape.
The towing company moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) , asserting it was entitled to governmental immunity under the GTLA because it was acting as the township’s agent.
Djonovic responded that the towing company was only contracted with the township; it maintained its status as a private domestic LLC and thus was not immune under the GTLA.
The trial court granted summary disposition for the towing company.
The appeals court panel said that was reversible error.
“As defendant notes, the GTLA, broadly speaking, ‘provides immunity from tort claims to governmental agencies engaged in a governmental function, as well as governmental officers, agents or employees,’” the judges noted. “Beyond reciting this general proposition from McLean [ v. City of Dearborn ], however, defendant does not substantiate its claim that, because it was acting as the Township’s contracted agent when the alleged torts occurred, it is entitled to immunity under the GTLA in this case. And examination of the GTLA itself shows otherwise.”
The GTLA extends immunity under certain circumstances to specific individual governmental actors, namely “each officer and employee of a governmental agency, each volunteer acting on behalf of a governmental agency, and each member of a board, council, commission, or statutorily created task force of a governmental agency.”
Here, the towing company merely cited to McLean , stating that governmental immunity extends to a government’s agents.
But McLean “did not hold this, or involve a private entity attempting to claim immunity under the GTLA on the basis of its status as an ‘agent’ of a governmental entity,” the panel pointed out. “Nor, for that matter, did McLean in any way suggest that the GTLA’s grant of immunity should be read to extend beyond its stated scope.”
The judges noted that while “agent” appears elsewhere in the GTLA, “the Legislature chose not to include it in the grants of immunity set forth in MCL 691.1407(1) and (2).”
“Correspondingly, there is no relevant authority showing that immunity from tort liability under these provisions of the GTLA extends to private corporate entities conducting business with a governmental agency, such as defendant in this case,” the panel wrote. “To the contrary, Michigan courts have repeatedly concluded otherwise.”
Since the towing company was not entitled to governmental immunity under the GTLA, the panel reversed the trial court’s award of summary disposition.
The unpublished decision is Djonovic v. Utica Van Dyke Service LLC ( MiLW 08-108180 , 4 pages). Judges Jane E. Markey, Brock A. Swartzle and Philip P. Mariani sat on the panel.
The matter returns to Macomb County for further proceedings.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
For top headlines, breaking news and more, visit milawyersweekly.com or sign up for our newsletter .
Most Popular
Comments / 0