Print this Page Email This Page Bookmark this Page
The WNJ Appellate Practice Group is one of the State’s premier appellate litigation practices. Our attorneys recently obtained an 8-1 victory in the United States Supreme Court, and have appeared in the U.S. Supreme Court more than 15 times. WNJ has also litigated in nearly every federal Circuit, recently argued in the Michigan Supreme Court, and participated in numerous Michigan Court of Appeals cases. The Appellate Practice Group has repeatedly achieved successful results for both parties and amicus curiae, and has been awarded the Distinguished Brief Award three times in the past four years for filing the most persuasive and scholarly brief in the Michigan Supreme Court. For more information, please visit our website.
  • 4/17/2014
  • MSC holds that a claim for breach of an indemnity provision of a contract accrues separately from a claim for breach of the underlying contract In Miller-Davis Co. v. Aherns Construction, Inc., the Michigan Supreme Court found that a general contractor's contractual indemnity claim against a subcontractor was not time barred even though the subcontractor's faulty construction took place more than six years before the contractor filed its suit.  The Court concluded that even though the contractor's claim that the faulty construction itself breached the parties' contract was barred by the applicable six year limitations period, the contractor's claim that subcontractor had breached the indemnity provisions of that contract was an independent claim that accrued separately.  Specifically, the Court held that the indemnity claim necessarily accrued after the subcontractor's breach of performing work to applicable specifications.  Indeed, the Court concluded that there could not have been a claim by the owner against the general contractor that would have triggered the subcontractor's indemnity obligation until the non-conforming work was discovered in February 2003, only about two years before the suit was filed.  Thus, the breach of the indemnity obligation was timely.  Additionally, based upon evidence that the general contractor had agreed with the owner to perform corrective work, the Court concluded that the owner had made a claim against the general contractor which triggered the subcontractor's indemnity obligations under the contract.  Finally, the Court concluded that the general contractor's indemnity claim did not need to establish that the nonconforming work caused the owner's moisture problems.  Instead, the general contractor merely needed to prove that incurred losses because of the subcontractor's failure to indemnify for the corrective work.   
The definitive law blog for navigating the automotive supply chain
The labor law blog for those who don't speak lawyer
How to remain a good corporate citizen in an era of heavy government oversight
News of diversity and inclusion initiatives at Warner Norcross & Judd

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.