Experience, expertise and common sense.

Fire Subrogation

Construction / September 14, 2009

Court/Case No: Kalamazoo County Circuit Court/ A08-0240-NZ

Tried/Argued Before: Judge


Verdict: Motion for Summary Disposition

Name of Judge(s):  Gary C. Giguere, Jr.

Keys to the Case:

In defending an insulation subcontractor, Secrest Wardle obtained summary disposition in a case involving in excess of $200,000 in property damage.  Secrest Wardle filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiff’s Consumer Protection Act claim asserting the defense that our client was a licensed contractor under the Michigan Occupational Code and regulated by the Residential Builders’ and Alteration Contractors’ Board and thus,  exempt from liability under the Consumer Protection Act.  The warranty claims were dismissed because the subrogee homeowners testified that they did not have any contact with the insulation contractor so they wouldn’t have entered into any agreements with them and even if they did, were satisfied with our client’s work.  The negligence claims were dismissed based upon the doctrine established in Fultz v Union Commerce Associates that our client owed no contractual or common law duty to plaintiff.  After granting summary disposition, Judge Gigurre, presiding in the Kalamazoo County Circuit Court, refused to permit the co-defendant to amend its Complaint to set forth claims for contractual and common law indemnity because no express indemnity contract provisions existed and the common law indemnity was barred because active negligence had been pled against the co-defendant.  The contribution claim was dismissed based upon the Legislature’s rejection of joint and several liability under Tort Reform.

Defense SW attorney(s) Involved in Case:


Quality legal representation is the result of knowledge, economy & hard work

Best Law Firms - 2024