Tag: condominium association

In a ruling on July 11, 2024, in the case of Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association, Docket No. 164158, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned previous case law and redefined the legal relationship between condominium associations and their co-owners with respect to premises liability. The Court ruled that when using common areas of the condominium, a co-owner is deemed to be an invitee. This classification requires the condominium association to exercise reasonable care to protect co-owners from hazardous conditions in these shared spaces.

Background

The case began when Daoud Mousa Janini, a co-owner and resident of a condominium unit managed by London Townhouses Condominium Association, suffered injuries after falling on a snow- and ice-covered sidewalk within the common area of the condominium complex. Janini and his co-plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the association, which is responsible for managing and maintaining the common elements of the complex, including sidewalks and parking lots.

The trial court initially allowed the premises liability claim to proceed, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed this decision, following the precedent set in Francescutti v Fox Chase Condo Ass’n. 312 Mich. App. 640 (2015). However, the Michigan Supreme Court took a different view, ultimately overturning both the Appeals Court ruling and the Francescutti precedent.

The Supreme Court’s Decision

The Supreme Court determined that a co-owner of a condominium unit should be considered an invitee when using the common elements of the condominium. This classification is crucial in premises liability law, as it imposes a higher duty of care on the property possessor. As a result, the Court ruled that condominium associations have a duty to exercise reasonable care in protecting co-owners from dangerous conditions in common areas.

The Court emphasized that the critical factor in premises liability cases is not land ownership (co-owners have a shared property interest in condo common elements) but rather who has possession and control over the property. In condominium settings, co-owners cede control of common elements to the association, justifying the association’s duty of care to a co-owner as invitee, according to the Court.

Implications of the Ruling

Co-owners now have a path to pursue premises liability claims against their condominium associations for injuries sustained in common areas, significantly strengthening their legal position in such disputes. Conversely, condominium associations now face an expanded duty of care towards co-owners, necessitating a reevaluation of their operational practices, including enhanced maintenance and safety protocols.

There are also important implications for insurance companies who provide coverage for condominium associations. They will need to reassess their coverage policies and premium structures for condominium associations. The increased potential for liability claims may necessitate higher coverage limits to adequately protect associations from the financial risks associated with premises liability lawsuits. This expanded liability exposure could potentially lead to increased premiums, as insurers adjust their risk calculations to account for the new legal standard.

The Bottom Line

The Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association decision marks a significant shift in Michigan condominium law by recognizing co-owners as invitees in common areas and imposing a corresponding duty of care on associations.

This Supreme Court decision represents a continuation of the obvious intent of this State’s highest Court (given its current make-up) to increase the ability of persons injured to pursue lawsuits. In the end, the Janini decision will result in higher insurance premium costs to condominium associations which in turn will be passed along as increased condominium dues to individual condominium owners.

The Plaintiff’s bar will likely benefit the most from our Supreme Court’s current efforts to open the door to personal injury lawsuits which had previously been barred.

If you have any questions or require assistance, please contact Andrew J. Moore or your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

This alert serves as a general summary and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions.

Andrew J. Moore is an attorney at Fraser Trebilcock with experience covering a range of practice areas, from auto and property insurance defense, commercial, construction, and probate and trust litigation, and general civil litigation, including business and family matters. You can reach him at 517.377.0848 or at amoore@fraserlawfirm.com.