Action for deaths arising from a workplace accident; The intentional-tort exception to the exclusive-remedy provision of the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA); MCL 418.131(1); Distinguishing Travis v Dreis & Krump Mfg Co, Gulden v Crown Zellerbach Corp (9th Cir), & People v Film Recovery Sys (IL App); The Wrongful-Death Act (WDA); MCL 600.2922(1); Wesche v Mecosta Cnty Rd Comm’n; Stone Warehouse of Michigan (SWM)

Holding that the trial court did not err in ruling that plaintiffs’ exclusive remedy was under the WDCA and properly dismissed their claims under the WDA, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant-employer (SWM) in this action arising from a fatal workplace accident. Plaintiffs’ decedents were both killed while trying “to move stone slabs stored on A-frame storage racks in one of SWM’s warehouses[.]” Plaintiffs asserted claims under the WDA and the intentional-tort exception to the WDCA’s exclusive-remedy provision. The court concluded the testimony here “failed to indicate that SWM’s owners and managerial employees had actual knowledge that injuries were certain to occur because of their deliberate actions or inaction regarding the configuration of the A-frame storage racks in the warehouse and the storage and handling of stone slabs.” As a result, this case was distinguishable from those the Michigan Supreme Court discussed in Travis. The facts here indicated “that SWM’s owners and managerial employees were aware that the stone slabs were stored in a dangerous manner and that the warehouse was overcrowded, which could lead to accidental injury if the stone slabs were not handled properly. However, unlike Gulden and Film Recovery Sys, SWM’s employees acknowledged that working in the stone industry is itself dangerous, they were aware of the potential for injury because of the overstocked condition of the warehouse, and the evidence does not lend itself to a conclusion that SWM’s owners and managerial employees had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to result from the manner in which the stone slabs were stored in the warehouse.” As to plaintiffs’ WDA claim, the Supreme Court in Wesche “acknowledged that the exclusive-remedy provision of the WDCA is a statutory limitation applicable to a WDA claim.” Similarly here, because the trial court did not err in granting SWM summary disposition based on the WDCA’s exclusive-remedy provision, it “likewise properly dismissed plaintiffs’ WDA claim premised on the WDCA.”