Case Name: Spring Harbor Club Condominium Association v. Wright
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 2016-03-04
Citations: 499 Mich. 863
Docket Number: No. 152092; Court of Appeals No. 321507
Parties: Spring Harbor Club Condominium Association v Wright,
Judges: 
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 499
Pages: 863–863

Head Matter:
Leave to Appeal Denied March 4, 2016:
Spring Harbor Club Condominium Association v Wright,
No. 152092; Court of Appeals No. 321507.

Opinion:
Markman, J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent from this Court's order denying leave to appeal. I would instead reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals to the extent it concluded that the trial court erred by granting summary disposition in favor of defendant Greg Wright and the various entities associated with him (the Wright defendants) on plaintiffs' express warranty claims.
'[C]ontracts are to be construed in their entirety." Perry v Sied, 461 Mich 680, 689 (2000). Article 12 of the contract between plaintiffs and the Wright defendants expressly warrants that "all Work will be of good quality, free from faults and defects and in conformance with the Contract Documents." It includes no time limitation. Article 21, however, provides that "[t]he Contractor shall correct any Work that fails to conform to the requirements of the Contract Documents . . within a period of eighteen (18) months from the date of the Final Certificate of Occupancy . . . ." In my judgment, contrary to the Court of Appeals' conclusion, Articles 12 and 21 are not independent provisions, but rather refer to the same subject matter—'Work" in conformance with the "Contract Documents"—and consequently must be read together to interpret the contract in its entirety. And when read together, these articles provide that the "Contractor," i.e., the Wright defendants, expressly warrants that all "Work" will be in conformance with the "Contract Documents" and that all "Work" that is not in conformance with the "Contract Documents" will be corrected within 18 months following the "date of the Final Certificate of Occupancy." That is, Article 21 imposes an 18-month limitation on the express warranty set forth in Article 12. Because the 18-month limitation has long since expired, I would conclude that plaintiffs cannot proceed with their express-warranty claims against the Wright defendants.
Because I believe the Court of Appeals clearly erred by concluding that the express warranty set forth in Article 12 was not subject to the 18-month limitation set forth in Article 21, I respectfully dissent.