On July 11, 2024, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a pivotal decision in Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association that directly affects how co-owners can pursue claims against condominium associations. In this landmark decision, the court ruled that a co-owner of a condominium unit can bring a premises liability action against the condominium association. Condominium associations can now be held liable under a premises liability theory for injuries sustained by co-owners in common element areas the association is responsible for maintaining even though the co-owner has a shared interest in the common elements.
In the Janini case, the plaintiffs, who were two co-owners, alleged that the Association failed to timely remove snow and ice from the common elements, leading to one of the co-owner’s fall and subsequent brain injury. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that as co-owners, the plaintiffs could not bring a premises liability claim since they were not considered “invitees,” as they are co-owners of the condominium.
However, the Michigan Supreme Court overturned this decision. The Court held that a co-owner of a condominium unit is considered an invitee when using the common elements of the condominium, imposing a duty on the condominium association to exercise reasonable care in protecting co-owners from dangerous conditions in these areas. This ruling allows co-owners to maintain premises liability actions against their condominium associations, overturning the previous case law established by Francescutti v. Fox Chase Condo Ass’n, which had precluded these claims. The Court emphasized that the critical factor in premises liability cases is not the ownership of the land but rather who has possession and control over it. The analysis focused on the fact that co-owners cede control over certain common elements to the association, and as such, the association owes a duty to those co-owners as they do any other invitee.
To succeed in a premises liability case, a plaintiff must prove that the property owner or operator was negligent. This means demonstrating that the owner failed to use “reasonable care” in maintaining the premises free of hazards. As we shared last year, the Michigan Supreme Court issued a decision in 2023 that imposed a comparative negligence standard in premises liability claims. The “open and obvious” doctrine is no longer a complete defense to these cases, although it is to be considered as part of the comparative fault analysis.
Prior to this decision, co-owners could potentially bring a cause of action against a condominium association for breach of contract. However, it is important for condominium associations to know that premises liability claims can lead to both economic and non-economic damages. This broadens the scope of potential liability for condominium associations beyond what is typically covered under breach of contract claims.
Under premises liability claims, examples of economic damages include medical expenses (both present and future), nursing services or home health care, long-term care, rehabilitation therapy, medications, lost wages, and lost income (both present and future). However, non-economic damages are also a potential, which include compensation for physical pain and suffering, psychological consequences, and impaired quality of life. A plaintiff is not entitled to these types of non-economic damages under a breach of contract claim.
The Janini ruling signifies a substantial shift in the legal landscape for condominium associations in Michigan, as they must now recognize increased exposure to premises liability claims from co-owners. This ruling does not necessarily change any obligations of a condominium association, as associations already owe this same duty to nonco-owner invitees (such as tenants) in common element areas the association has responsibility for. However, this will increase the pool of potential plaintiffs that could bring an action against the association if these common elements are not sufficiently maintained. It is advisable to review your association’s insurance policies to ensure adequate coverage for premises liability claims, including both economic and non-economic damages.
