-1- 

STATE OF MICHIGAN 

COURT OF APPEALS 

ALLAN ROOKS, 

 Plaintiff, 

UNPUBLISHED 

December 22, 2016 

v No. 328561 

Macomb Circuit Court 

ANDOVER HEIGHTS CONDOMINIUM 

ASSOCIATION, 

LC No. 13-001697-NO 

 Defendant/Third-Party PlaintiffAppellant, 

v 

JOHNNIES CONCRETE REPLACEMENT, INC. 

 Third-Party Defendant-Appellee. 

Before: SAAD, P.J., and METER and MURRAY, JJ. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Third-party plaintiff Andover Heights Condominium Association (Andover) appeals the 

trial court’s order that granted summary disposition in favor of third-party defendant Johnnies 

Concrete Replacement, Inc. (Johnnies). For the reasons provided below, we affirm. 

I. BASIC FACTS 

 This case arises from the replacement of a step at Andover’s property and the subsequent 

fall of plaintiff Allan Rooks at that step. During the summer of 2011, Andover contracted with 

Johnnies to perform various concrete repair work throughout the Andover Heights Condominium 

complex in Sterling Heights, Michigan. One of the specified items in the agreement was for 

Johnnies to replace the step that was located outside the front door of unit 72. 

 In March 2012, nine months after Johnnies replaced the step, Rooks, who is an amputee 

and walks with the use of a prosthetic leg, visited his friend who lived at unit 72 in the Andover 

complex. Rooks entered the unit through the rear door. When Rooks left the unit, he left 

through the front door, and when he attempted to step down onto the replaced step, he slipped 

and fell to the ground. It was later determined that the height differential from the landing down 
-2- 

to the step was approximately 9-1/4 inches, which is approximately 2 inches more than what is 

allowed under then-existing building codes. 

 Rooks sued Andover and alleged that Andover was actively negligent for failing to 

inspect the premises and maintain the premises in a safe manner.

1

 Andover, in turn, filed a thirdparty claim against Johnnies and alleged two counts: (1) common-law/implied indemnity and 

(2) negligence/gross negligence and/or contribution. Regarding this second count,2

 Andover 

asked that Johnnies “defend, indemnify, and hold harmless [Andover] from any and all liability 

arising out of this lawsuit and must reimburse [Andover] for all costs, expenses, and attorney 

fees incurred.” 

 Johnnies moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10) and 

argued that Andover could not sustain its indemnity claim because Rooks’ underlying complaint 

against Andover alleged active negligence as opposed to vicarious or derivative liability. 

Although Johnnies did not explicitly reference Andover’s second count, Johnnies argued that “in 

the alternative,” it could not be liable because there is no evidence that it did anything wrong. 

Specifically, Johnnies maintained that it was not required to do more than what was specified in 

the estimate it provided to Andover, which was to replace the bricks and the pre-cast concrete 

step. And because there was no evidence to show that Johnnies did not do exactly what it was 

asked to do—replace the step with an identical one—its work could not have caused any 

damages. Andover responded to Johnnies’ motion and argued that if Johnnies replaced the step, 

but not in compliance with applicable building codes, then Johnnies was negligent, regardless of 

the state of compliance of the old step. 

 The trial court granted Johnnies’ motion and dismissed Andover’s case against Johnnies. 

The court focused on Andover’s indemnity claim and ruled that because Rooks’ allegations 

against Andover involved “active rather than passive negligence,” Andover was precluded from 

seeking indemnification from Johnnies. The court did not substantively address Andover’s 

negligence claim against Johnnies. 

 Andover filed a motion for reconsideration and pointed out to the court that the order 

granting summary disposition in favor of Johnnies did not address Andover’s negligence count. 

In its motion, Andover also attached numerous other exhibits in support of its opposition to 

Johnnies’ motion for summary disposition. The court denied the motion and stated, in pertinent 

part, that (1) Andover should have submitted its exhibits previously and (2) the court “absolutely 

addressed the issue of liability pursuant to the [Andover’s] claims of negligence” and will not 

“rehash[]” it again. 

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW 

 

1

 Rooks and Andover settled that suit, so Rooks’ claims against Andover are not before us. 

2

 As discussed, infra, Andover’s claim of indemnity also is not before us. 
-3- 

 Johnnies moved for summary disposition under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10). This 

Court reviews a trial court’s decision on a motion for summary disposition de novo. Peters v 

Dep’t of Corrections, 215 Mich App 485, 486; 546 NW2d 668 (1996). “A motion for summary 

disposition brought under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the complaint on the 

basis of the pleadings alone. The purpose of such a motion is to determine whether the plaintiff 

has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion should be granted if no factual 

development could possibly justify recovery.” Beaudrie v Henderson, 465 Mich 124, 129-130; 

631 NW2d 308 (2001). A motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is 

factual support for the claim. Neubacher v Globe Furniture Rentals, Inc, 205 Mich App 418, 

419; 522 NW2d 335 (1994). Such a motion is properly granted if there are no genuine questions 

of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Dawoud v State 

Farm Mut Auto Ins, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket Nos. 327915 & 327927, issued 

October 18, 2016), slip op, p 3. 

III. ANALYSIS 

 Andover concedes that the trial court properly dismissed its claim of indemnity3

 but 

argues that the court erred when it failed to consider Andover’s claim of negligence against 

Johnnies at the time it summarily dismissed its complaint. We disagree. 

 “It is well established that the gravamen of an action is determined by reading the 

complaint as a whole, and by looking beyond mere procedural labels to determine the exact 

nature of the claim.” Adams v Adams, 276 Mich App 704, 710-711; 742 NW2d 399 (2007). 

Thus, Andover’s use of the label “negligence” on the second count in its complaint is not 

controlling. Indeed, our review of the claim shows it merely a restatement of its claim of 

indemnity. 

 The right to common-law indemnification is based on the equitable theory 

that where the wrongful act of one party results in another party’s being held 

liable, the latter party is entitled to restitution for any losses. The right exists 

independently of statute, and whether or not contractual relations exist between 

the parties, and whether or not the negligent person owed the other a special or 

particular legal duty not to be negligent. Common-law indemnity is intended only 

to make whole again a party held vicariously liable to another through no fault of 

his own. [Botsford Continuing Care Corp v Intelistaf Healthcare, Inc, 292 Mich 

App 51, 62; 807 NW2d 354 (2011) (quotation marks, citations, and brackets 

omitted).] 

 Here, while Andover invoked the word “negligence” in the title of its second count, it is 

clear that Andover simply was re-presenting its claim for indemnification. Any “damages” 

Andover suffered were the result of paying Rooks on his initial claim that Andover was 

negligent. Indeed, in Andover’s prayer for relief on this second count, Andover asked the trial 

 

3

 Consequently, we offer no opinion on whether Andover’s claim of indemnity was legally 

barred. 
-4- 

court to order Johnnies to “defend,” “indemnify,” “hold harmless,” and to “reimburse” Andover. 

Such requests are inconsistent with a claim of negligence, which only seeks to recover actual 

damages. Here, arguably any negligent act on Johnnies’ part would have caused Rooks’ injuries. 

For Andover to recoup the amount it paid Rooks, based on Rooks’ underlying claim against 

Andover, sounds in indemnification. Accordingly, with Andover’s complaint sounding only in 

indemnification, there is no negligence count to decide. Thus, the trial court did not err when it 

failed to address Johnnies’ motion for summary disposition in the context of a claim of 

negligence.4

 Although the trial court did not espouse these reasons, we will nonetheless affirm 

on different grounds. See Messenger v Ingham Co Prosecutor, 232 Mich App 633, 643; 591 

NW2d 393 (1998). 

 When a third-party plaintiff, like Andover, seeks to have a third-party defendant held 

responsible, in whole or in part, for the damages paid to the plaintiff, the third-party plaintiff 

must advance a claim for indemnification or, if the third-parties are both tortfeasors, 

contribution. But, here, because Andover has conceded that its indemnification claim was barred 

by Rooks’ active negligence claim against it and because Andover failed to assert a claim for 

statutory contribution among joint tortfeasors,5 it has no direct cause of action against Johnnies 

to require Johnnies to reimburse it for its settlement with Rooks. 

 Affirmed. Johnnies, as the prevailing party, may tax costs pursuant to MCR 7.219. 

/s/ Henry William Saad 

/s/ Patrick M. Meter 

/s/ Christopher M. Murray 

 

4

 And, as already noted, Andover concedes on appeal that its claim for indemnity was properly 

dismissed. 

5

 Although Andover’s second count against Johnnies was titled “NEGLIGENCE/GROSS 

NEGLIGENCE AND/OR CONTRIBUTION,” Andover made no allegations that sounded in 

contribution and did not cite Michigan’s contribution statute, MCL 600.2925a. Moreover, 

Andover also never argued before the trial court or this Court that its second count against 

Johnnies referred to any claim of contribution. Instead, Andover asserted that the claim was one 

of negligence, but we have already indicated that this is incorrect because its claim is purely 

derivative, as it seeks to have Johnnies pay some or all of the settlement dollars it paid to Rooks.