Governmental immunity; The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) (MCL 691.1401 et seq); Absolute immunity; MCL 691.1407(5); Action within the scope of legal authority; Petipren v Jaskowski; A drain commissioner’s duties & powers; The Drain Code (MCL 280.1 et seq); MCL 280.241 & 280.245; The use or misuse of a badge of governmental authority; Smith v Department of Pub Health; Armstrong v Ypsilanti Charter Twp; Civil conspiracy, unjust enrichment, breach of contract, & quantum meruit; Genesee Cnty Drain Comm’r v Genesee Cnty

While the court held that governmental immunity barred plaintiff’s civil conspiracy claim against defendant-county drain commissioner (Quattrin), he was not entitled to absolute immunity under MCL 691.1407(5) as to their unjust enrichment, breach of contract, or quantum meruit claims. Thus, it reversed the denial of his summary disposition motion as to the civil conspiracy claim, but affirmed the trial court’s other rulings, and remanded. The parties disputed whether the allegations of wrongdoing forming the factual basis for plaintiffs’ “claims against Quattrin, taken as true, were within the scope of his authority or whether Quattrin was acting” beyond the scope of his authority. The court found that the trial court erred in its analysis of the civil conspiracy claim. Plaintiffs’ “allegations of conspiratorial or fraudulent activity by Quattrin were based on Quattrin’s exercise of his executive authority as drain commissioner to award or refuse to award contracts for certain drain jobs.” The court noted that the “award of, and payment for, drain jobs was squarely within Quattrin’s executive authority as the elected drain commissioner.” It could not consider his “alleged motive or subjective intent in awarding or denying contracts, or in withholding payment for completed work.” The court concluded that, whether plaintiffs’ claim was viewed “as one of ‘fraud’ or ‘conspiracy’ (or both),” they failed to allege any tortious action by Quattrin “independent from his official role and authority.” Thus, MCL 691.1407(5) conferred absolute governmental immunity as to the civil conspiracy claim. But it rejected his argument that he was also entitled to absolute immunity on their unjust enrichment, breach of contract, and quantum meruit claims. The court held in Genesee Cnty Drain Comm’r that “breach of contract or breach of implied contract claims are not barred by the GTLA, which immunizes governmental actors only from claims sounding in tort.” It disagreed with Quattrin’s contention that plaintiffs’ complaint simply repackaged or restated tort claims as contract claims, concluding that it alleged “distinct causes of action and injury caused by Quattrin’s alleged breaches of express or implied contractual obligations. At this early stage of the proceedings, nothing more is required; the GTLA” did not apply to those claims.