plaintiff alleges violation in Michigan

2018Even if plaintiff could definitively prove that HFV was obligated to refund the full $152,000 under the parties' agreement and failed to do so, "[t]he failure to perform a contractual duty cannot give rise to a tort action unless the plaintiff alleges a violation of a duty separate and distinct from the underlying contractual obligation." Kisiel v. Holz , 272 Mich. App. 168 , 172, 725 N.W.2d 67 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2018Even if plaintiff could definitively prove that HFV was obligated to refund the full $152,000 under the parties' agreement and failed to do so, "[t]he failure to perform a contractual duty cannot give rise to a tort action unless the plaintiff alleges a violation of a duty separate and distinct from the underlying contractual obligation." Kisiel v. Holz , 272 Mich. App. 168 , 172, 725 N.W.2d 67 (2006) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

2025The “failure to perform a contractual duty cannot give rise to a tort action unless the plaintiff alleges a violation of a duty separate and distinct from the underlying contractual obligation.” Smith Living Trust v Erickson Retirement Communities, 326 Mich App 366, 395 ; 928 NW2d 227 (2018).

2025The “failure to perform a contractual duty cannot give rise to a tort action unless the plaintiff alleges a violation of a duty separate and distinct from the underlying contractual obligation.” Smith Living Trust v Erickson Retirement Communities, 326 Mich App 366, 395 ; 928 NW2d 227 (2018).

2018Co Rd Ass’n of Mich v Governor, 287 Mich App 95, 121 ; 782 NW2d 784 (2010) (recognizing the general principle that governmental immunity cannot be claimed in a state court action where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the state constitution). -8- reading of Landowski and Potomac River Ass’n does not yield any indication that these opinions stand for the broad proposition of law that defendant promulgates here: that parties in any manner participating in projects that involve the USACE are automatically immunized from liability.

2018Co Rd Ass’n of Mich v Governor, 287 Mich App 95, 121 ; 782 NW2d 784 (2010) (recognizing the general principle that governmental immunity cannot be claimed in a state court action where the plaintiff alleges a violation of the state constitution). -8- reading of Landowski and Potomac River Ass’n does not yield any indication that these opinions stand for the broad proposition of law that defendant promulgates here: that parties in any manner participating in projects that involve the USACE are automatically immunized from liability.

2026Laurel Woods Apartments v Roumayah, 274 Mich App 631, 635 ; 734 NW2d 217 (2007).

2026Laurel Woods Apartments v Roumayah, 274 Mich App 631, 635 ; 734 NW2d 217 (2007).

2025In granting summary disposition, the trial court correctly noted that these claims are barred because plaintiffs’ alleged injury arises entirely from defendants’ failure to perform under the 2021 Agreement. “[T]he essence of the ‘economic loss’ rule is that contract law and tort law are separate and distinct, and the courts should maintain that separation in the allowable remedies.” Huron Tool & Engineering Co v Precision Consulting Servs, Inc, 209 Mich App 365, 371 ; 532 NW2d 541 (1995) (citation omitted). “[T]he failure to perform a contractual duty cannot give rise to a tort action unless t

2025In granting summary disposition, the trial court correctly noted that these claims are barred because plaintiffs’ alleged injury arises entirely from defendants’ failure to perform under the 2021 Agreement. “[T]he essence of the ‘economic loss’ rule is that contract law and tort law are separate and distinct, and the courts should maintain that separation in the allowable remedies.” Huron Tool & Engineering Co v Precision Consulting Servs, Inc, 209 Mich App 365, 371 ; 532 NW2d 541 (1995) (citation omitted). “[T]he failure to perform a contractual duty cannot give rise to a tort action unless t

2020Id. at 119 .1 A constitutional tort may exist when a plaintiff alleges a violation of the Michigan Constitution by a governmental policy.

2020Rusha v Dep’t of Corrections, 307 Mich App 300, 305 ; 859 NW2d 735 (2014).

2020Rusha v Dep’t of Corrections, 307 Mich App 300, 305 ; 859 NW2d 735 (2014).

2014“We review de novo the determination whether a duty exists.” Hill v Sears, Roebuck & Co, 492 Mich 651, 659 ; 822 NW2d 190 (2012).

2002Therefore, the customer should install suitable protective equipment if such occurrences might damage his apparatus. [Tariff 9, Rule B-3.2.] 2 As our Supreme Court recently reiterated, “[w]Me Michigan case law has unequivocally held that claims sounding in tort against public utilities are properly brought before the circuit courts, these holdings do not, expressly or by implication, preclude exercise by the mpsc of jurisdiction over those claims that have traditionally fallen within its authority.” Travelers, supra at 202 . 3 As discussed above, Michigan case law attempts a distinction betwee

1997The plaintiffs action in Hart failed to state a cause of action in tort because “[t]he only duty, other than that voluntarily assumed in the contract to which the defendant was subject, was his duty to perform his promise in a careful and skillful manner without risk of harm to others, the violation of which [was] not alleged.” Id. at 565 .

1882The character of the controversy is sufficiently explained in the published report. 44 Mich. 424 At the trial subsequently had pursuant to said order, the circuit judge directed a verdict for defendants, and the plaintiff alleges error.