Claims for property damage under the sewage disposal system event (SDSE) exception to governmental immunity; MCL 691.1407(2); SDSE “event”; MCL 691.1416(k); Defect in a sewage disposal system; MCL 691.1416(e); Substantial proximate cause; MCL 691.1417(3); “Service lead”; MCL 691.1416(k)(i); Cannon Twp v Rockford Pub Sch; Notice & foreseeability of overvoltage; MCL 691.1417(3)(c); Sufficiency of pleadings under MCR 2.111; Great Lakes Water Authority (GLWA); Public Light Department (PLD)

The court held that plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of defects in defendants’ (city and water authority (GLWA)) sewage disposal system to survive summary disposition under the SDSE exception to governmental immunity. Plaintiff-homeowner sued defendants for property damage after her home flooded during a 7/21 storm, alleging defects at defendants’ pumping station and in the sewer system. The trial court granted summary disposition for defendants, reasoning that the flooding was caused by an unforeseeable overvoltage from the PLD and thus not a cognizable defect. On appeal, the court rejected defendants’ arguments that plaintiff’s claim failed as a matter of law. It explained that under MCL 691.1416(k)(i), a “service lead” is a connection between a claimant’s property and the sewer system, not the connection between the PLD’s line and the pumping station, and thus the trial court erred in excluding plaintiff’s claim on this basis. Further, the trial court’s ruling that the overvoltage did not constitute a defect was contrary to industry standards, which require “[e]mergency pumping capability” regardless of whether power is lost through outage or overvoltage. The court also concluded that the electrical system was part of the sewage disposal system, citing Cannon Twp for the principle that instrumentalities used in connection with waste collection and disposal fall within the statute. It held that plaintiff raised a genuine issue of material fact as to defendants’ knowledge of the defect, pointing to her expert’s affidavit that voltage instability had previously affected the station, and emphasized that the trial court erred by rejecting that evidence and finding unforeseeability without record support. It further held that defendants’ alternative arguments, that the storm exceeded design capacity and that plaintiff failed to plead a defect, also failed. Defendants’ own expert acknowledged a factual dispute over storm severity, and plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently alleged that defects in design, operation, and maintenance of the pumping station caused the flood. The court concluded that “for purposes of summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity, it is an actionable claim.” Reversed and remanded.