Chrum v. Charles Heating and Cooling, Inc.
327 N.W.2d 568, 121 Mich. App. 17 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages for mental distress are not recoverable for breach of a commercial contract where the injury is solely to property. To recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in tort, a plaintiff must demonstrate a definite and objective physical injury produced as a result of the emotional distress.
Facts:
- In November 1978, Mr. and Mrs. Chrum purchased a furnace from Charles Heating & Cooling, Inc.
- Charles Heating & Cooling, Inc. installed the furnace in the Chrums' home.
- On April 11, 1979, the newly installed furnace caused a fire.
- The fire destroyed the Chrums' home and all of its contents.
- Mr. and Mrs. Chrum did not suffer any direct physical injuries as a result of the fire.
- The Chrums' insurer, State Farm, compensated them $43,782.49 for their property loss.
- The Chrums sought additional compensation from Charles Heating & Cooling, Inc., including damages for emotional distress, fright, and mental anguish.
Procedural Posture:
- State Farm Fire & Casualty Company sued Charles Heating & Cooling, Inc. in a state trial court, seeking subrogation.
- Mr. and Mrs. Chrum filed a separate lawsuit in the same court against Charles Heating & Cooling, Inc., alleging negligence and seeking damages for economic loss and emotional distress.
- The trial court consolidated the two actions.
- The defendant, Charles Heating & Cooling, Inc., filed a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Chrums' claim for emotional distress.
- The trial court denied the defendant's motion.
- The parties settled all other claims, leaving only the claim for mental distress damages pending.
- The defendant (now the appellant) was granted leave to appeal the trial court's denial of its motion to the intermediate appellate court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract for the installation of a home furnace, which results in the destruction of property but no physical injury to the person, fall within the exception that allows for the recovery of damages for mental distress in breach of contract actions?
Opinions:
Majority - T. Gillespie, J.
No. A contract for the installation of a furnace is a commercial contract, not a personal one involving matters of mental concern and solicitude, and therefore damages for mental distress are not recoverable for its breach when only property is damaged. The court reasoned that under the precedent of Kewin v Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins Co, damages for breach of a commercial contract are generally limited to economic losses that arise naturally from the breach. The court distinguished this case from the exception established in Stewart v Rudner, which allows mental distress damages for breaches of highly personal contracts (e.g., a doctor's agreement to perform a Caesarean section). The Stewart exception applies where deep, personal human relations are involved, not where the injury is to property. A contract for a home improvement like a furnace installation is considered commercial. Furthermore, the court found the Chrums' complaint was insufficient to establish an independent tort claim for emotional distress, because under Daley v LaCroix, such a claim requires pleading and proof of a 'definite and objective physical injury' that results from the emotional distress, which was not alleged here.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between commercial and personal contracts for the purpose of awarding non-economic damages. It clarifies that contracts for home improvements, even for essential and potentially dangerous items like a furnace, are treated as commercial transactions where damages for mental distress are not available. The ruling solidifies the narrow scope of the 'personal contract' exception, limiting it to agreements involving deeply personal matters like medical care or funeral services. The case also underscores the distinct and stringent requirements for pleading a separate tort claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, which demands a resulting physical manifestation of the mental anguish.
