Negligence; Duty & breach; MCL 330.1401; Loweke v Ann Arbor Ceiling & Partition Co, LLC; Proximate cause & foreseeability; MCL 330.1141; Ray v Swager; Breach of contract; Workmanlike performance; Miller-Davis Co v Ahrens Constr, Inc

The court held that plaintiffs presented sufficient factual allegations and record evidence to proceed on both negligence and breach-of-contract theories, so summary disposition for defendant was improper. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant overfilled their 275-gallon above-ground oil tank while on a keep-full program, causing oil to spill through a displaced gauge and flood their home. On appeal, the court held that suppliers of dangerous commodities owe a duty “commensurate with the danger of the product,” and that foreseeability existed because failing to respond to the absence of a whistle, a known warning sign, could lead to overfilling and property damage. It found a factual dispute where experts testified that the driver was required to stop immediately if no whistle was heard, calling this “fuel delivery 101,” while the driver claimed the slow fill masked the whistle. The court also found sufficient evidence of causation because a jury could infer “a logical sequence of cause and effect” connecting defendant’s conduct to the spill. As to contract, the court held that plaintiffs adequately alleged an agreement to deliver oil in a reasonably skillful manner and that conflicting testimony about the delivery created a jury question. Finally, plaintiffs were not entitled to summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2) because material factual disputes remained. The court reversed the trial court’s order granting defendant’s motion, affirmed denial of plaintiffs’ request for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(I)(2), and remanded.