Where the plaintiff, a commercial cannabis grow facility, filed a complaint after a plumbing failure, the plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition should be denied because there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant breached the contract between the parties.
“Plaintiff is a commercial cannabis grow facility. Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant for extensive services to Plaintiff’s building on January 7, 2020.
“In February 2023, plumbing lines installed beneath the concrete ruptured, and the property flooded with water and sewer backup (Complaint, 13). Because of the flooding, there was a mold outbreak (Complaint, 14). A plumber investigated the flood and found that a sub-grade supply line compression coupling was executed improperly, and that caused the leak and flooding in the storage room where the cannabis was stored (Complaint, 15).
“The plumber found that the flooding occurred because of an O-ring coupler that was not crimped, ‘causing water to trickle over the course of several months’ after Defendant finished installation (Complaint, 17). Because the water trickled within the walls, it was undetectable until the flooding occurred and mold had grown (Complaint, 17).
“Plaintiff also alleges that Defendant improperly installed the HVAC system, causing difficulties in maintaining the building temperature and humidity, which has damaged Plaintiff’s products (Complaint, 20-21).
“Defendant has denied any wrongdoing in any of their services. Defendant argues that any problems that may have occurred would be based upon a failure in the plans and specifications, which Defendant did not create. Defendant also argues that the problem with the O-Ring could not have gone on for two years, so that there must be a failure in the product, for which Defendant would not be responsible. Defendant also argues that the plumbing work passed inspection in March 2020, relieving Defendant of liability.
“Plaintiff argues there can be no genuine issue that the Defendant’s improper installation of the O-Ring (the failure to crimp it) was the cause of the flooding and damages. To support their position, Plaintiff offers a variety of evidence. Plaintiff first relies upon a moisture and microbial assessment done by MoldQuest.
“Plaintiffs also rely upon an insurance loss report from Specialty Adjusting International dated March 1, 2023.
“Defendant argues that Plaintiff received a Certificate of Occupancy after passing all inspections on February 5, 2021, or more than two years before the leak was discovered. Defendant further states that the plumbing at issue was installed in March 2020 and was subjected to pressure tests for 24 hours (Brief in Response, and Exhibit F). Finally, Defendant argues that the plumbing passed inspection on March 20, 2020 (Brief in Response, Exhibit K).
“Defendant has denied the allegations in the Complaint and put forth viable defenses to those allegations in the way of Ordinary Defenses and Affirmative Defenses. Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(9) is not appropriate.
“Plaintiff argues that there is no genuine issue of any material fact because the experts have determined that the failure to crimp the O-Ring caused the flooding, which is in turn what caused Plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff’s Complaint indicates that a plumber, Jeff Bliss, investigated the flood event and made that determination (Complaint, 15). The Expert Report relies upon that assumption, but it does not make any finding that the failure to crimp the line caused the damage. Mr. Bliss’s information was relayed to the experts by the Plaintiff and then relied upon. There is no evidence before the Court that the failure to crimp the line caused the damage.
“The mold reports likewise rely upon Plaintiff’s representations as to the cause of the water that led to the mold. Although the report finds that the water led to the mold, it makes no finding as to the source of the water.
“There are additional questions of fact regarding the HVAC unit. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant was responsible for the entirety of the system. Defendant argues that portions of it were excluded from the contract and the issues complained about are ordinary maintenance.
“In the end, there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the Defendant breached the contract between the parties. Accordingly, summary disposition of the Plaintiff’s Breach of Contract (Count I) is not warranted.”
Old School Organics LLC v. Lee Indus. Contracting Inc.; MiLW 10-108138, 7 pages; Oakland Circuit Court; Valentine, J.
Click here to read the full text of the opinion.
Copyright © 2024 BridgeTower Media. All Rights Reserved.
Most Popular
Comments / 0