Breach of contract; Damages; Liquidated damages clause; Ambiguity; Surplusage

The court held that the trial court did not err by enforcing the liquidated damages clause in the parties’ contract. Plaintiff hired defendant to install window and door guards at its residential rental property. The property sustained significant fire damage as a result of vandalism. Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract, alleging the vandals were able to get in because of its failure to properly secure two windows and a door. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendant and enforced the liquated damages clause in the parties’ rental contract, limiting damages to $600. On appeal, the court agreed with the trial court that the liquidated damages clause applied beyond the failure of the leased equipment. Because “defendant’s installation obligations are addressed within paragraph seven as ‘leased equipment,’ the limitation of damages applies comprehensively to both warranties claims and breach of contract claims.” Thus, to the extent plaintiff claimed “defendant was contractually obligated to install certain equipment and that it failed to do so, that failure and that equipment would be covered by the provision in question.” Further, while “the paragraph at issue generally involves ‘Inspection and Warranties,’ the provision nevertheless is drafted broadly. In particular, [it] limits liability ‘howsoever arising and whether or not caused by negligence.’ To interpret this phrase the way plaintiff argues would create surplusage,” which the court avoids. Affirmed.