Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, Roseville Plaza Limited Partnership initiated a products liability lawsuit against United States Gypsum Company, claiming over $2 million in damages for asbestos abatement costs associated with fireproofing materials in a shopping center constructed in the early 1960s. The lawsuit included claims of negligence, misrepresentation, breach of warranty, civil conspiracy, nuisance, and restitution. United States Gypsum Company moved for summary judgment, arguing that the claims were statute-barred under Michigan law, as the cause of action accrued before the critical date of May 31, 1988. The district court found in favor of the defendant, citing substantial evidence indicating Roseville's awareness of asbestos issues prior to the statutory deadline. The decision was affirmed on appeal, with the appellate court applying the discovery rule from Moll v. Abbott Lab., confirming that a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury and its cause through reasonable diligence. The court also upheld the summary judgment on the restitution claim, noting that Roseville failed to contest these issues. The ruling emphasized Roseville's independent duty to ensure safety, and thus, the claims were deemed time-barred.
Legal Issues Addressed
Discovery Rule in Products Liabilitysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the discovery rule articulated in Moll v. Abbott Lab., confirming that a cause of action accrues when the plaintiff discovers, or should have discovered through reasonable diligence, the injury and its likely cause.
Reasoning: The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Moll v. Abbott Lab. provided further support for the district court's ruling... stating that a claim accrues once a plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury and its likely cause.
Restitution Claim and Statute of Limitationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court ruled that the restitution claim was time-barred as it relied on legal theories also time-barred, and Roseville did not contest this issue.
Reasoning: The district court affirmed the grant of summary judgment on these grounds. It held that the restitution claim, characterized as equitable restitution, was also time-barred based on the underlying legal theories.
Statute of Limitations for Products Liability Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found Roseville Plaza Limited Partnership's claim time-barred because the cause of action accrued before the critical date of May 31, 1988, as indicated by substantial evidence of Roseville's awareness of asbestos issues.
Reasoning: The district court concluded that this information established Roseville's knowledge of the asbestos presence, supporting Gypsum's position that the cause of action had accrued prior to May 31, 1988.
Summary Judgment on Time-Barred Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court granted summary judgment in favor of United States Gypsum Company, determining that the claims were filed beyond the statute of limitations period.
Reasoning: Roseville's claim, filed on May 31, 1991, was deemed time-barred due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.