Whether noneconomic damages are recoverable for the negligent destruction of real property; Review; 2000 Baum Family Trust v. Babel; Analysis of the common law on this issue; Bugbee v. Fowle; Beech Grove Inv. Co. v. Civil Rights Comm'n; O'Donnell v. Oliver Iron Mining Co; Koester v. VCA Animal Hosp.; Bernhardt v. Ingham Reg'l Med. Ctr.; Sutter v. Biggs; Henry v. Dow Chem. Co.; North Ottawa Cmty. Hosp. v. Kieft; Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act (NREPA)

The court held that the common law of this state has long provided that the appropriate measure of damages in cases involving the negligent destruction of property is simply the cost of replacement or repair of the negligently destroyed property. The court continued to adhere to this rule and declined to alter it. The court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court for entry of summary disposition in defendant's favor. Plaintiff's house was originally heated by an oil furnace located in the basement. In 2006, she replaced the oil furnace with a propane furnace. Plaintiff cancelled her contract with defendant-oil company's predecessor when the propane furnace was installed. Although the oil furnace was removed, the oil fill pipe remained. In 11/07, plaintiff's address was placed on defendant's "keep full list." While plaintiff was at work, defendant's truck driver pumped nearly 400 gallons of fuel oil into plaintiff's basement through the oil fill pipe before realizing his mistake and immediately called 911. Plaintiff's house and many of her belongings were destroyed. Between defendant's and plaintiff's insurers, the site was remediated, a new house was built on the property in a different location, plaintiff's personal property was cleaned or replaced, and she was reimbursed for all temporary housing-related expenses. It was undisputed that she was fully compensated for her economic losses. She sued in 8/08, alleging claims for negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, nuisance, trespass, and a private claim under the NREPA. However, her only claim to survive to trial was for the recovery of noneconomic damages for defendant's negligent destruction of her real property. After trial and over defendant's objection, the jury found for plaintiff in the amount of $100,000 for past noneconomic damages. Defendant moved for a JNOV and remititur. The trial court denied the motion and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The court concluded that the answer to the issue in this case is a matter of common law. The common law rule as to the damages recoverable in an action alleging the negligent destruction of property was set out in O'Donnell. "If injury to property caused by negligence is permanent or irreparable, [the] measure of damages is [the] difference in its market value before and after said injury, but if [the] injury is reparable, and [the] expense of making repairs is less than [the] value of [the] property, [the] measure of damages is [the] cost of making repairs." Because replacement and repair costs reflect economic damages, the logical implication of this rule is that the measure of damages excludes noneconomic damages and the latter are not recoverable for the negligent destruction of property. The court also noted that "no case ever in the history of the Michigan common law has approvingly discussed the recovery of noneconomic damages for the negligent destruction of property."