Summary
The Michigan Supreme Court denied applications for leave to appeal and cross-appeal from a Michigan Court of Appeals judgment in a dispute involving express warranties for construction work. Justice Markman dissented, concluding that an 18-month correction provision in the contract limited the express warranty and barred the plaintiffs’ warranty claims.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the Michigan Supreme Court should grant leave to appeal from the Court of Appeals' judgment concerning plaintiffs' express-warranty claims.
- Whether the contract's eighteen-month correction provision limited the express warranty covering the construction work.
Holdings
- The Michigan Supreme Court denied the application for leave to appeal and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellants because it was not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed.
Key quotations
““[C]ontracts are to be construed in their entirety.”” (2)
“In my judgment, contrary to the Court of Appeals’ conclusion, Articles 12 and 21 are not independent provisions, but rather refer to the same subject matter — “Work” in conformance with the “Contract Documents” — and consequently must be read together to interpret the contract in its entirety.” (2)
Factual background
Plaintiffs entered into a construction contract with the Wright defendants containing an express warranty that all work would be of good quality, free from faults and defects, and conform to the contract documents. The contract also required correction of nonconforming work within eighteen months of the final certificate of occupancy. Plaintiffs asserted express-warranty claims concerning the construction work, and the trial court granted summary disposition to the Wright defendants.
Procedural history
The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Greg Wright and associated entities on plaintiffs' express-warranty claims. The Court of Appeals reversed or otherwise held that the trial court erred in granting that summary disposition. The Michigan Supreme Court denied both the application for leave to appeal and the cross-application, while Justice Markman dissented and would have reversed the Court of Appeals in part.