CITIZENS INSURANCE CO OF AMERICA V CONSUMERS ENERGY CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CITIZENS INSURANCE COMPANY OF
AMERICA, SUBROGEE OF ROYAL LINEN,
INC.,
UNPUBLISHED
May 24, 2005
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
No. 252442
Cheboygan Circuit Court
LC No. 03-007178-CZ
CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Murphy, P.J., and White and Smolenski, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order that granted defendant summary disposition
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7). We affirm. This appeal is being decided without oral argument
pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
Plaintiff’s insured suffered substantial property damage as a result of a fire that was
allegedly caused by defendant’s failure to properly maintain and repair its power lines. At issue
on appeal is whether the trial court erred in determining that plaintiff’s action was barred by the
three-year statute of limitations. The interpretation and application of a statute of limitations
presents a question of law, which is reviewed de novo on appeal. Collins v Comerica Bank, 468
Mich 628, 631; 664 NW2d 713 (2003). A trial court’s summary disposition ruling is reviewed
de novo on appeal. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998).
Although plaintiff contends that the four-year limitations period in MCL 440.2725
applied, article two of the UCC does not apply to the sale of electricity. Klapp v United Ins
Group Agency, 259 Mich App 467, 471; 674 NW2d 736 (2003); Williams v Detroit Edison Co,
63 Mich App 559, 564; 234 NW2d 702 (1975). Electricity is a service rather than a “good.”
Williams, supra at 564.
Additionally, plaintiff’s breach of contract claim was barred by the three-year limitations
period applicable to actions in which a plaintiff seeks to recover damages to property based on a
duty imposed by law. Huhtala v Travelers Insurance Co, 401 Mich 118, 126-127; 257 NW2d
640 (1977). “The obligation of a public utility to supply electricity at an appropriate voltage
(like the obligation of an innkeeper to protect his guests against assault) does not depend on the
agreement of the parties but arises as a matter of law independent of the terms of their
-1-
agreement.” Id. at 129. Further, “[t]he relationship of the supplier of services with the
consumer, although contractual in inception, [gives] rise to a duty imposed by law on the
supplier, apart from the terms of their agreement, to take reasonable safeguards to protect the
consumer.” Id. at 130. The trial court in this case properly determined that plaintiff was
attempting to enforce a duty implied by law and that the three-year limitations period applied.
The parties may have had a contractual relationship in which plaintiff agreed to pay for and
defendant agreed to supply electricity, but the duty to maintain and repair the powers lines in a
workmanlike manner was an implied duty.
Affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Helene N. White
/s/ Michael R. Smolenski
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
