Plaintiff
purchased a Samsung refrigerator from defendant Best Buy, which handled the
installation. Within days, the refrigerator leaked. While cleaning up,
plaintiff fell and was injured. She sued Best Buy, which filed a notice of
nonparty fault, naming Samsung. Best Buy moved for summary disposition, arguing
that plaintiff could not establish causation. The trial court granted the
motion. Plaintiff amended her complaint pursuant to MCR 2.112(K) to name
Samsung. The trial court granted summary disposition to Samsung because
plaintiff did not file a motion to amend before amending her complaint and also
due to lack of causation. Plaintiff appealed. In a published opinion, the Court
of Appeals reversed Best Buy’s dismissal on causation grounds. The court also would
have reversed Samsung’s dismissal, but it concluded that it was required to
affirm by Williams v Arbor Home, Inc,
254 Mich App 439 (2002). The court declared a conflict with Williams and a special conflict
resolution panel was convened. In a published opinion, the special panel held
that Williams was wrongly decided. The
four judges in the majority concluded that there was a conflict between MCL
600.2957(2) and MCR 2.112(K), and that the court rule prevailed because the
conflict related to a procedural question. As a result, it was not necessary
for plaintiff to file a motion before amending her complaint because MCR 2.112(K)
has no such requirement. The majority also held that the relation-back
provision of MCL 600.2957(2) applied. The three judges who concurred did not
find a conflict between the statute and the court rule but agreed that it was unnecessary
for plaintiff to file a motion to amend. The concurring judges also agreed that
the relation-back rule applied. The special panel reversed the trial court’s
order granting summary disposition to Samsung, and remanded the case for
further proceedings. The Supreme Court has granted Samsung’s application for
leave to appeal to address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals special panel
correctly held that there is a conflict between MCL 600.2957(2) and MCR 2.112(K);
(2) whether, in any event, a party may amend a complaint upon receipt of a
notice of nonparty fault without first filing a motion to amend; and (3) if so,
whether the amendment relates back to the date the complaint was filed.