Michigan Appeals Court Says Flint Class Action Holds Water
The Michigan Court of Appeals has refused to dismiss a class action brought over the Flint water contamination crisis, opening the door for hundreds of residents bringing claims against the state, according to a lawyer in the case.
January 25, 2018 at 07:13 PM
4 minute read
The Michigan Court of Appeals has refused to dismiss a class action brought over the Flint water contamination crisis, opening the door for hundreds of residents bringing claims against the state, according to a lawyer in the case.
Thursday's 2-1 ruling upheld an October 2016 decision by the Michigan Court of Claims refusing to grant summary disposition on most claims that the state had challenged, primarily on procedural grounds. The Michigan Court of Claims handles tort claims against the state.
Plaintiffs attorney Michael Pitt of Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers in Royal Oak, Michigan, said the decision “cleared away an obstacle” toward pursuing discovery in his case and allowed hundreds of other cases in the Court of Claims to go forward.
“It creates some great law for the many, many, many litigants who are behind us,” he said. “So we're very gratified that we're able to open the courthouse doors.”
➤➤ Get class action news and commentary straight to your in-box with Critical Mass by Amanda Bronstad. Learn more and sign up here.
The defendants, which include three state departments and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, had filed a motion for summary disposition, arguing that plaintiffs brought their claims too late under the state's Court of Claims Act when they filed the case in January 2016.
“What the state was arguing is the plaintiff should have known there was a claim shortly after the water switch occurred in April 2014 because the water had a bad appearance, had a bad smell, tasted bad, people were complaining early on the water was making them sick, so they should have filed their lawsuit or notice within six months,” Pitt said.
But in Thursday's opinion, Judge Kathleen Jansen wrote: “As the Court of Claims observed, accepting defendants' position would require a finding that plaintiffs should have filed suit or provided notice at a time when the state itself claims it had no reason to know that the Flint River water was contaminated.” She was joined in the majority opinion by Karen Fort Hood.
The state attorney general's office did not respond to a request for comment, nor did attorneys for two emergency managers in Flint, who the Michigan Court of Appeals found were acting as “state officers.”
The majority opinion also found that notice was timely under the fraudulent concealment exception of the state's statute of limitations.
Pitt called that a “breakthrough decision.”
“Basically, they said, righteously and rightfully, the state of Michigan should not benefit from their fraudulent behavior,” he said. “They knew the water was not fit for human consumption and said otherwise for several months and concealed from the public the true nature of the contamination, and shouldn't benefit from that.”
The panel also found that the notice requirement couldn't be so “harsh and unreasonable” as to threatened one's constitutional rights. The case alleges claims such as the due process right to bodily integrity and unconstitutional taking via inverse condemnation.
“It would be unreasonable to divest plaintiffs of the opportunity to vindicate their substantive, constitutional rights simply because defendants successfully manipulated the public long enough to outlast the statutory notice period,” Jansen wrote.
The ruling is a victory for lawyers suing over the crisis in Flint. Other cases have been dismissed. City and state officials, and two engineering firms, have moved to dismiss a consolidated class action in federal court in Michigan.
In addition to the notice findings, the Michigan Court of Appeals refused to dismiss the bodily integrity and inverse condemnation claim, alleging that the actions of state officials reduced Flint's property values, but also upheld dismissal of a claim that the water contamination was a “state-created danger.”
In a dissent, Judge Michael Riordan, a Snyder appointee from 2013, said he would have dismissed the case, noting that “any action by defendants in attempting to cover their errors does not change the fact that there were abundant events, unrelated, and temporally prior, to defendants' cover-up, that should have alerted plaintiffs to their potential claims. In fact, plaintiffs' pleadings show that those events, or red flags, did alert plaintiffs of their potential claims.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All4th Circuit Upholds Virginia Law Restricting Online Court Records Access
3 minute read'Where Were the Lawyers?' Judge Blocks Trump's Birthright Citizenship Order
3 minute readRFK Jr. Will Keep Affiliations With Morgan & Morgan, Other Law Firms If Confirmed to DHHS
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Week in Data Jan. 24: A Look at Legal Industry Trends by the Numbers
- 2The Use of Psychologists as Coaches/Trial Consultants
- 3Could This Be the Era of Client-Centricity?
- 4New York Mayor Adams Attacks Fed Prosecutor's Independence, Appeals to Trump
- 5Law Firm Sued for $35 Million Over Alleged Role in Acquisition Deal Collapse
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250