Products Liability Law Daily Wrap Up, STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND REPOSE—MOTOR VEHICLES—Mich. App.: Summary disposition in favor of Ford reversed in driver’s injury action, (Sep 12, 2024)

By Pankhuri Bhatnagar, B.A. LL.B.

A lower court erred in determining that the driver’s claims were barred by the statute of limitations.

In a suit brought against an automaker by a woman who sustained a leg injury when her parked car allegedly rolled and ran over her leg, a Court of Appeals in Michigan, in an unpublished opinion, reversed a trial court’s grant of summary disposition to the manufacturer and denial of the driver’s amendment request. The appellate court found that affidavits from the woman’s family members and her psychiatrist’s report established a question of fact regarding insanity tolling and her proposed amendment was not futile. However, discovery rule and fraudulent concealment tolling did not apply because she “should have discovered a possible cause of action” at the time of the accident (Wendel v. Ford Motor Co., No. 365678 (Mich. App. September 5, 2024)).

Background. In October 2018, a woman was exiting her 2017 Ford Escape with the transmission in park when the vehicle allegedly began to roll and ran over her right leg. In June 2022, Ford Motor Company recalled the 2017 Escape for a defect in the “gear shifter cable bushing.” The driver brought suit against the vehicle manufacturer in July 2022, alleging breach of warranty, negligence, and gross negligence arising from a product defect. She explained the delay in filing the suit by stating that, notwithstanding her firm conviction that she had properly placed the transmission in park, the assumption of others was that she had failed to properly do so. It was only in June 2022 when she became aware of the recall due to a defect in the mechanical connections between the gear selection lever and transmission, creating the potential for exactly what happened to her.

Prior proceedings. Ford moved for summary disposition, arguing that the products liability action was untimely filed as it was subject to a three-year statute of limitations from the date of the accident. The woman responded that she was entitled to tolling because of insanity and submitted affidavits of her two sons and deceased husband, which detailed the decedent’s battle with Alzheimer’s from 2016 onwards and the woman’s stressful role as his caretaker, which adversely affected her mood, habits, mental acuity, and ability to care for herself. A letter from a psychiatrist diagnosed the driver with depressed and persistent sleep disturbances since before the accident, which resulted in “slowed thinking and difficulty recalling aspects of her history without referring to an assistive document.” The doctor concluded that she met the definition of insanity under MCL 600.5851 because she could not “comprehend[ ] rights [she was] otherwise bound to know.” The woman further stated that her warranty claim accrued when she discovered the breach in June 2022 and that the statute of limitations was tolled by Ford’s fraudulent concealment of the defect.

Ford countered that the statute of limitations specific to warranty claims applied to service contracts, and a different statute of limitations for product liability claims applied here, and that the insanity defense was not supported since she did not present facts constituting mental derangement at the time of the accident and instead contended she had a firm conviction that the accident was not her fault. The driver moved to amend her complaint to add that she was suffering from a condition of mental derangement prior to the accident and continuing until the present date. Ford responded that the filing of the complaint immediately after learning of the recall directly contradicted her argument that she was unable to understand her rights because of mental derangement. A trial court granted the manufacturer’s motion, noting that (1) the case was initiated by the driver in her own capacity and not by a conservator or next friend, which would have been required by MCR 2.201 if she was incompetent at the time of filing; (2) the insanity defense was first raised in her response to the motion; and (3) the doctor’s opinion and sons’ affidavits were insufficient to demonstrate a question of fact for the jury regarding her insanity. The other tolling arguments were also denied since the warranty claim was not brought within the three-year time period for a product liability claim and the complaint did not allege any acts or misrepresentations by Ford that fraudulently concealed her claims. The driver appealed.

Insanity tolling. This court observed that whether a conservator or a guardian was appointed is irrelevant to the question of insanity under MCL 600.5851, as held in Prof Rehab Assoc v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co., 228 Mich App 167, 176; 577 NW2d 909 (1998). Accordingly, the trial court’s focus on this fact was misplaced. The psychiatrist informed that the woman’s preexisting depressive condition in conjunction with the head injury she sustained had caused a neurocognitive disturbance which impaired her ability to think clearly, process information, and act on it. She also had “persistent sleep disturbance since the accident,” and was “significantly traumatized” by the accident. Given that she was under the care of a psychiatrist for caregiver stress-related depression before her accident and was treated with antidepressant medication, the doctor concluded that she met the MCL 600.5851 definition of insanity. The court acknowledged that the “opinion of an expert does not extend to legal conclusion” per Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 129 n 11; 597 NW2d 817 (1999), but there were additional circumstances that created a question of fact concerning insanity.

The driver’s sons averred that at the time of being injured by her car, the driver was worried, isolated, forgetful, depressed, often disoriented, emotional, imprudent with her finances, and that these characteristics comprised a personality they did not recognize in her. The stress of being her husband’s primary caregiver caused her to regularly forego sleep. After her injury, she “had no ability to…take care of herself without significant assistance from” her family members. If her mental condition was serious enough to completely prohibit her from independently managing the basics of daily life, including relatively simple tasks like personal grooming, it followed that she would also not comprehend rights she was otherwise bound to know. Her ability to recall the transmission placement was a conflict to be resolved by a trier of fact, the court determined. Next, the court observed that delay, standing alone, is insufficient to warrant denying leave to amend. Rather, there must be evidence the delay was in bad faith or caused actual prejudice. Nothing in the record showed that the amendment request, which did not occur on the eve of trial and sought amendments related only to the insanity-tolling issue already raised in responding to Ford’s motion, would be prejudicial. Since the woman had established a question of fact regarding insanity tolling, her proposed amendment was not futile, and the trial court abused its discretion in denying it.

Warranty claim. In Southgate Community Sch Dist v West Side Constr Co, 399 Mich 72; 247 NW2d 884 (1976), the state high court indicated that warranty claims subject to the discovery rule involve deterioration of a product over time and are distinct from cases involving sudden injury to a person or property, where the harm is more apparent and indicates a potential cause of action. Thus, the woman’s warranty claim was properly construed as sounding generally in products liability and not being subject to the discovery rule for the subset of breach of warranty claims under MCL 600.5833. Assuming arguendo that the discovery rule applied, her claim was filed more than three years after it accrued because accrual occurs when a plaintiff “should have discovered” a “possible cause of action” per Moll v Abbott Laboratories, Atlanta, Inc., 444 Mich 1, 23-24; 506 NW2d 816 (1993). Here, no specialized knowledge of the workings of an automobile, diligent investigation, or recall notice from Ford were needed—if one is convinced they put an automobile in park but the car subsequently rolls, one cannot escape the inference the automobile did not function properly. Therefore, upon the event of the accident, the driver “should have discovered a possible cause of action,” starting the statute of limitations clock. Whether the discovery rule applied or the default accrual “at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done” rule applied, all of the claims accrued at the time of the accident and were untimely filed.

Fraudulent concealment. Although the complaint alleged that “th[e] defect was well-known to Ford long before its belated recall,” the woman never alleged any affirmative action by Ford designed to prevent discovery of a potential cause of action. Rather, the record showed that the delay in filling suit either resulted from her personal struggles and mental health issues, others believing she was at fault, or a combination of these circumstances. Further, to be sufficiently apprised of a cause of action, a plaintiff need only be aware of a possible cause of action; it is not necessary that the plaintiff know the details of the evidence supporting the claim. Because this standard of awareness of a “possible cause of action” mirrored a discovery rule of accrual, further analysis was not necessary. The woman had a firm conviction that she placed her vehicle in park and was compelled to infer that a defect in the vehicle caused the accident, and so was effectively aware of the cause of action immediately after the accident. Because Ford could not conceal what she was immediately aware of, there was no fraudulent concealment.

The case is No. 365678.

Judge: Per Curiam.

Attorneys: Christopher P. Desmond (Ven Johnson Law) for Patricia Wendel. Kyle M. Asher (Dykema Gossett PLLC) for Ford Motor Co.

Companies: Ford Motor Co.

Cases: CourtDecisions SofLReposeNews MotorVehiclesNews DesignManufacturingNews GCNNews MichiganNews