Governmental immunity; The sewage-disposal-system-event exception; Margaris v. Genesee Cnty.; MCL 691.1417(2); “Defect” requirement; MCL 691.1417(3)(b); MCL 691.1416(e); A sewer obstruction caused by a foreign object; Willet v. Charter Twp. of Waterford; Principle that the source of the defect is not one of the elements a plaintiff must prove under the exception; Cannon Twp. v. Rockford Pub. Sch.; Notice requirements; MCL 691.1419(1)-(3); Dybata v. Wayne Cnty.; An appellant’s failure to produce a transcript; Thompson v. Thompson; MCR 7.210(B)(1)(a); PT Today, Inc. v. Commissioner of Office of Fin. & Ins. Servs.

The court concluded that defendant-city water and sewage department effectively abandoned its appeal by failing to produce the summary disposition motion hearing transcript. Further, even if it had not, the trial court did not err in ruling that a material fact question existed as to whether there was a defect in the sewer system and that plaintiff did not have to file a separate claim for the 10/17 flooding event. Thus, the court affirmed the denial of defendant’s motion. After a major flooding event in 11/16, plaintiff filed a written claim for damages that defendant denied. It also sought damages for the 10/17 event. There was “ample evidentiary support for plaintiff’s allegation that the sewage system had a defect. After a year of defendant insisting that the backups were caused by an obstruction in the service lead, in [1/18] extensive work was done on the main sewer line after which wastewater in the apartment building receded and water in the sewer main flowed freely. According to plaintiff, there have been no backups in the apartment building since. Defendant does not dispute that there was debris removed from the sewer, and, tellingly, it no longer asserts that the defect was in the service lead.” Rather, it contended that plaintiff’s claim failed because it did not identify the cause of the defect as the debris was not the same debris that allegedly entered the system during a demolition project. But the court concluded that there was a fact question as to “whether the debris was the result of the demolitions conducted at the City’s behest” in 2015, and, more importantly, defendant failed to support “its position that plaintiff’s claim fails if it cannot identify the source of the debris causing the blockage.” Its reliance on Willet was misplaced, as the court did not hold “that government agencies are not liable for obstructions caused by unknown third parties. While plaintiff must prove multiple elements under the sewage-disposal-system event exception, the source of the defect is not one of them.” As to the lack of written notice of the 10/17 flooding, plaintiff immediately notified defendant of the event, triggering “defendant’s obligation under MCL 691.1419(2). However, defendant did not inform plaintiff that it was required to file another written claim or provide any other information required by subsection (2).” As a result, plaintiff could proceed pursuant to MCL 691.1419(3).