Whether a subcontractor owed a duty of care to plaintiff; People v Babcock; W W White Co v LeClaire; Reliance on the Occupational Code; MCL 339.601(3); Claire-Ann Co v Christenson & Christenson, Inc; Common-law duty; Whether plaintiff’s claims were arbitrable; Subject-matter jurisdiction; MCL 600.605; Michigan Uniform Arbitration Act (MUAA); MCL 691.1684; Whether the alternative dispute resolution provision in the general contract was incorporated into the subcontract; Madison Dist Pub Sch v Myers; “Contract documents”; Motion to compel arbitration & dismiss

The court held that plaintiff-county road commission “failed to show the existence of a duty owed to it” by defendant-subcontractor under the Occupational Code or common law. Thus, the trial court erred in denying dismissal of its negligence claim.Also, the MUAA did not deprive the trial court of subject matter jurisdiction and permit “delegation of the determination of jurisdiction to the arbitrator.” Finally, the trial court erred in ruling that “the alternative dispute resolution provision in the general contract was incorporated into the subcontract,” but did not err in denying defendant’s motion to compel and dismiss plaintiff’s breach of contract claims. Thus, in Docket No. 347439, the court reversed the trial court’s orders related to plaintiff’s negligence claim denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition, and defendant’s motion for reconsideration. It remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition to defendant on this claim. In Docket No. 347712, it affirmed the denial of defendant’s motions to compel arbitration and to dismiss of plaintiff’s breach of contract claims. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint claimed that “as an engineer, mechanical contractor, and/or design professional, defendant ‘had a preexisting, separate, and distinct (from any contractual obligations) duty to perform the Mechanical Work in a manner that protected the safety, health, and welfare of the public, including [plaintiff].’” Plaintiff asserted this duty arose from the Occupational Code, “under which the defendant, as a mechanical contractor, was required to be licensed.” Plaintiff analogized its case to Babcock and W W White Co. However, the court concluded that, under the holding in Claire-Ann Co, plaintiff “is owed no duty under the licensing requirements of the Code, which did not create a duty owed to private parties, like plaintiff.” Its common law duty claim also lacked legal support. Plaintiff argued that “defendant had a common law duty to ‘protect[] the safety, health, and welfare of the public,’ however, the contract itself articulates the duty owed by the defendant to both” the general contractor and plaintiff as the owner. “The subcontract also provided that defendant would perform its work ‘in a prudent and safe manner; maintain a safe and secure workplace; insure the safety of all persons and property of yourself and others; comply with all safety requirements of the Owner.’” Plaintiff failed to “otherwise plead facts to support a duty of care for mechanical contractors to act so as to protect the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”