Negligence claim arising from a gas explosion & fire; Girvan v Fuelgas Co; Duty; Replacement of a service line & testing; Breach; Moning v Alfono; Chapter 24, § G2417.1 (406) of the 2009 Michigan Residential Code; MI Admin Code R 460.2351 (Rule 51); “Proximate cause”; Ray v Swager

Holding that multiple questions of fact existed, the court concluded the trial court erred in granting defendant-Consumers Energy summary disposition of plaintiff’s negligence claim arising from a home gas explosion and fire. Plaintiff lived at the home with his mother. “The house had two pipelines: (1) an underground natural-gas pipeline” (referred to as the service line) and (2) a fuel line. Plaintiff asserted an ordinary negligence claim “against Consumers Energy for its conduct while replacing a service line about one month before the explosion occurred.” At least one expert alleged the “installation fell below a standard of care, resulting in the harmful effects on the portion of the pipe within plaintiff’s home and control. That same expert further alleges the errors in installation by Consumers were discoverable through better testing.” The court concluded that “Consumers Energy undertook a duty to inspect the fuel line and, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to plaintiff, whether it did so with adequate care is a question of fact.” As to breach, it held that plaintiff established “a question of material fact as to whether Consumers Energy’s conduct fell below the standard of care.” The court found that “whether various provisions of the Michigan Residential Code and Michigan Administrative Code are applicable, there remains a question of fact regarding the specific standard of care and whether Consumers Energy adequately installed the line and adhered to statutory requirements for inspection.” An expert “stated the shadow test and soap test were inadequate to test the gas line and the fuel line[.]” The court noted that it was “not in a position to speculate whether certain tests would simply constitute additional precautions.” As to proximate cause, there was “evidence to suggest the company’s performance when replacing the service line created a leak, which led to an explosion, or was a cause in fact of plaintiff’s injuries. In other words, a jury could conclude it was more likely than not, but for the company’s conduct, plaintiff’s injuries would not have occurred.” Reversed and remanded.