Building & fire code compliance; The 2015 International Fire Code (2015 IFC); The 2015 Michigan Building Code (2015 MBC); Keeping or maintaining a “dangerous building”; MCL 125.538; MCL 125.539; “Custodial care” (2015 MBC § 202); Institutional Group I-1 classification; 2015 MBC § 308.3; Institutional Group I-2 occupancy; 2015 MBC § 308.4; “Limited”

Concluding that the record was factually deficient, the court held that the trial court erred in approving plaintiff’s evacuation “plan as constituting limited assistance under the I-1 condition 2 use occupancy classification.” Plaintiff operates an assisted care and memory care facility for the elderly. Defendants argued the trial court erred in approving plaintiff’s plan because the second and third floors of the facility “were incompatible with the mandates of an I-1 condition 2 occupancy under the fire and building codes.” Defendants also argued the trial court did not make sufficient factual findings. The court agreed. There was no dispute “the facility was required to comply with the 2015 MBC and 2015 IFC.” Defendants asserted that “plaintiff’s proposed plan did not comply with the requirements of an I-1 condition 2 occupancy because the amount of labor required to evacuate 75 bedridden residents from the second and third floors constituted more than mere ‘limited assistance.’” Plaintiff asserted the number of such “residents suggested by defendants was contrived, asserting residents on the upper floors are not provided any medical assistance and typically relocate to a different facility when their health declines.” The court concluded that the trial court’s decision as to “limited assistance was erroneous because the record was unclear regarding the exact number of residents living on the second and third floors who are (1) able to self-evacuate, (2) require assistance to evacuate, and (3) are bedridden or otherwise incapable of evacuating independently or with limited assistance. Without further factual development, the limited record” did not enable the court to decide the issue. It noted that plaintiff must show “precisely how it plans to execute the evacuation. That necessarily mandates an understanding of which residents require assistance, if any.” The court also noted that the “plain language of the I-1 condition 2 occupancy under section 308.3.2 of the 2015 MBC, as well as the 2015 IFC provision governing I-1 condition 2 occupancy, requires a ‘complete building evacuation.’” Due to the lack of information about “the number of employees to attend to the respective residents and the time frame involved, it was unclear whether residents would be taking refuge in the stairwells.” Vacated and remanded.