Michigan Court of Claims denies state's request to resolve Edenville Dam case without trial

Yahoo

13-05-2025

Flooding aftermath of Edenville Dam failure | Timothy Wenzel of Midland photo
At a Monday afternoon motion hearing, Michigan Court of Claims Judge James Robert Redford rejected the state of Michigan's request to resolve a case brought by several individuals impacted by the 2020 Edenville Dam failure without a trial.
Nearly five years ago, on May 19, 2020, the Edenville and Sanford Dams, located near Midland, failed due to record rainfall, forcing thousands of individuals to evacuate and causing catastrophic flooding and damage to property.
The Edenville Dam's former owner Lee Mueller was found liable for $119 million in environmental damage in a suit brought by the Michigan Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy.
Days after the dam failed, a number of property owners took action against the DNR and EGLE, seeking compensation and arguing the departments' actions contributed to the dam's failure. The DNR and EGLE sought summary disposition on the grounds that there is no genuine issue of material fact within the complaint.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
According to the Michigan Judicial Institute' Civil Proceedings Benchbook, a motion of this nature should not be filed until discovery is completed, however the motion may be granted when 'there is no reasonable chance that further discovery will result in factual support for the nonmoving party.'
'The bottom line is, there's some, limited albeit, but there is some expert discovery that's continuing,' Redford said.
Any further motions for summary disposition must be filed no later than July 3, 2025, with the court scheduled to hear arguments on those motions on Sept. 15, 2025.
The DNR's motion clearly created factual questions on whether EGLE was aware of the safety risk posed by the dam, Redford said, noting that the court's task under the specific motion filed by the state is to determine whether an issue of material fact exists to warrant a trial.
'The opinion to deny [this motion for] relief is not an opinion which states the plaintiffs will win this case at trial. That's not the standard. This case, if allowed to, will go to trial, and the trial court will have to weigh and evaluate the credibility of the evidence in a standard and in a manner which is far different from that in the [summary disposition] motion,' Redford said.
Kevin Carlson, who represents the individuals impacted by the dam failure, was pleased with Redford's decision, saying they would 'finally have their day in court.'
'These plaintiffs have suffered unimaginable losses, and we are committed to holding the parties responsible accountable for their actions. For five years, the State of Michigan knew about the dam's dangerous condition but refused to act in the best interests of the public and instead made the dam more dangerous by authorizing higher water levels. We look forward to pressing forward with this case and ensuring justice for those impacted by this catastrophic failure.'
While the Michigan Advance reached out to Nathan Gambill, the assistant attorney general representing the DNR and EGLE, he redirected questions to a department spokesperson. The Attorney General's office had not responded as of the time of publication.