Michigan Supreme Court Rules: Co-Owner May Maintain Lawsuit against Association for Injuries Sustained on Common Elements

In a divided opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court recently ruled that a condominium co-owner who was injured while on common elements of a complex can maintain a premises liability action against a condominium association.

In the case of Janini v. London Townhouses Condominium Association (Docket No. 164158; decided July 11 2024). The court held:

“A co-owner of a condominium unit in a condominium project is an invitee when that person enters the common elements of the condominium project, and the condominium association owes the co-owner a duty to exercise reasonable care to protect the co-owner from dangerous conditions on the land.” Therefore, a co-owner may maintain a premises-liability action against the condominium association, and Francescutti v Fox Chase Condo Ass’n, 312 Mich App 640 (2015), was overruled.

In Michigan, condominium ownership is governed by the Condominium Act, MCL 559.101 et seq., and under the act, the administration of a condominium project is governed by the Michigan Supreme Court.

The “common elements” of a condominium project are the portions of the project other than the condominium units. Under the Act, the condominium association is a separate legal entity that is capable of being sued by a co-owner or other person. Although the Act is silent regarding whether a condominium association has a common-law duty to protect a co-owner from dangerous conditions on the land under its control, i.e., the common areas, nothing in the act clearly prohibits application of the common law to such circumstances. Moreover, there is no indication that by creating a statutory cause of action that co-owners and others may bring against a condominium association to compel it to enforce the provisions of the governing documents, the Legislature meant to abrogate the common law and immunize condominium associations from tort liability. However, whether a condominium co-owner may maintain a premises-liability action against a condominium association depends on whether a special relationship exists between the co-owner and the association as the owner, occupier, or possessor of the land, such that the law imposes a duty of care on the association.

Although a condominium project’s common elements are typically owned collectively by the condominium co-owners, the co-owners do not independently exercise exclusive ownership over the common elements, but rather cede control to the condominium association, whose responsibility it becomes to maintain the common elements. Thus, while condominium co-owners have an undivided interest in the common elements under the act, that interest does not mean that they have control over the common elements. The Court further stated in the opinion:

“We hold that, when the master deed and bylaws governing a condominium complex provide that the condominium association is responsible for maintaining the common areas and the condominium’s co-owners lack possession and control over those common areas, a condominium co-owner using the condominium complex’s common areas and elements is an invitee,” Justice Richard H. Bernstein wrote. “In such circumstances, a condominium association owes a condominium co-owner a common-law duty to exercise reasonable care to protect them from dangerous conditions in the common areas.”

The facts of the case indicate that Daoud and Feryal Janini own and reside in a condominium unit that is part of a condominium complex.
On March 16, 2019, Daoud stepped out of his condominium and into a common area of the complex to throw garbage into a dumpster. As he walked down the complex’s sidewalk, which was covered in snow and ice, he slipped and fell, hitting the back of his head against the icy sidewalk and resulting in a brain injury.

The association’s bylaws expressly state that it is responsible for the maintenance of the complex’s common elements. The Janinis sued the association alleging that the defendant breached its duty to maintain the sidewalk by failing to timely remove snow and ice from the sidewalk. The association filed a motion for summary disposition and the trial court dismissed the Janinis’ claims except for the premises liability claim.

Reversing, the Court of Appeals held that a condominium co-owner was neither a licensee nor an invitee and was therefore precluded from bringing a premises liability claim against a condominium association. The Janinis appealed.

The ruling will have a major impact regarding how associations and their insurance policies operate. Associations will have more exposure to legal risks and may increase the number of personal injury lawsuits that are filed. As a result, insurance premiums may increase with some predicting as much as 25% over the next few years. As such Associations should review their policies to ensure there is coverage for both economic and non-economic damages in these instances. The result may be that higher deductibles to save costs and/or raising assessments may be in order. Moreover, the ruling emphasizes the need for diligent maintenance of common element areas and adequate reserve funds as any major failures in that regard may lead to policy cancellations or non-renewal by insurers.

John D. Gwyn is an attorney in our Livonia office where he focuses his practice on commercial litigation, real estate law, community association law, and municipal law. He has broad and extensive experience of over 25 years in matters involving commercial and consumer litigation primarily focused on the representation of community associations and financial institutions. Mr. Gwyn currently represents developers, condominium and HOA associations regarding matters involving real estate, contract, and construction issues. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or jgwyn@cmda-law.com.