Anselmi Mierzejewski Ruth & Sowle P.C. | A-M Law | Attorneys | Counselors

Anselmi Mierzejewski Ruth & Sowle P.C.

Insurance Defense Counsel In Jurisdictions Throughout Michigan

Michigan Supreme Court Ruling on Co-Owner Premises Liability Claims: A Summary of Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association

On Behalf of | Jul 18, 2024 | Firm News

(Docket No. 164158)

Michigan Supreme Court Ruling on Co-Owner Premises Liability Claims: A Summary of Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association

Daoud Janini owned a unit at the London Townhouses Condominium complex. On March 16, 2019, while walking to throw out garbage, Janini slipped on a sidewalk covered in snow and ice while in the common area of the complex. Janini filed suit against the condominium association, alleging various claims, including most importantly and the sole issue in the Supreme Court’s decision, a claim for common law premises liability negligence.

In a 5-2 decision, the Supreme Court ultimately overturned a previous case, Francescutti v Fox Chase Condo Ass’n, 312 Mich App 640; 886 NW2d 891 (2015), based on the notion that a co-owner of a premises is not the person necessarily “in control” of the premises, and thus made a distinction between ownership of a premises and control of a premises. In support of this, the Supreme Court held that liability attaches in two important respects. First, the Supreme Court held that a unit owner in a condo association is an “invitee” of the association because unit owners have a business relationship with associations wherein they pay associations (in the form of HOA fees) for the ability to use common areas of the complex and for the association to take care of the common areas.

The Supreme Court also held that a “special relationship” existed between tenants and associations, and cited to Bailey v Schaaf, 494 Mich 595, 604; 835 NW2d 413 (2013) in support of its holding. The Supreme Court indicated that “special relationships are predicated on an imbalance of control, where one person entrusts himself to the control and protection of another, with a consequent loss of control to protect himself.” The Supreme Court held that this dynamic exists between unit owners and an association because unit owners “do not independently exercise exclusive ownership over the common elements . . . . Rather, condominium co-owners cede control over those common elements to the condominium association, and it becomes the responsibility of the condominium association to maintain those common elements.”

Aftermath

The Janini decision certainly opens condominium associations to more potential liability as it pertains to co-owners of the complexes. However, the Janini decision still leaves many questions unanswered. While the Supreme Court held that Francescutti was overturned, it is important to note that the Francescutti case examined additional issues that were not addressed in the Janini case, such as whether co-owners of a condo complex can additionally rely on MCL 554.139 as an additional cause of action on top of common law premises. It is expected that the “holes” created in Janini will result in these issues needing to be litigated in the future.

Author’s Note

Anthony P. Sinishtaj and Rita Arabo lead the Premises Liability department at Anselmi Mierzejewski Ruth & Sowle P.C. and conduct intake for these types of cases. If you have any questions or a legal issue that needs answering, please contact our firm for consultation.