Flint Water Crisis Class Action Lawsuit Moves Forward

UPDATE: November 2020, a $641 million settlement has been reached to benefit Michigan residents affected by the Flint water crisis.

The Michigan Supreme Court has ruled a Flint water contamination class action lawsuit against the state can move forward.

The high court’s 4-2 ruling allows Flint residents to continue their attempt to recover the value of property they allege to have been improperly taken. The court also ruled 3-3 on the plaintiffs’ claim that their bodily integrity was violated, allowing the claim to continue.

Plaintiff Melissa Mays and others had filed their class action lawsuit against Gov. Rick Snyder, the state of Michigan, the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the state Department of Health and Human Services; they also sued former Flint city managers in a separate case.

The defendants had argued that the Flint water crisis class action lawsuit should be dismissed because the plaintiffs had failed to “provide timely notice” and had not sufficiently pleaded their claims, according to court documents.

The Court of Claims granted a partial dismissal on claims that were not relevant to the issues presented to the Michigan Supreme Court, but denied dismissal of the claim of inverse condemnation as well as the claim of violation of the right to bodily integrity under the Michigan Constitution’s Due Process Clause.

During the appeals process, the Court of Appeals upheld the Court of Claims’ decision, at which point the defendants filed to appeal to the high court.

During arguments in March, Assistant Attorney General Nate Gambill had urged the Michigan Supreme Court to rule against the plaintiffs, according to legal news from CBS Detroit.

“There is no policy maker who authorized or mandated that low-level staffers go out and expose the plaintiffs to toxic water,” he said.

The city used Flint River water in 2014 and 2015 without treating it to reduce corrosion on old pipes, allowing lead to leach into the system, CBS Detroit reported. The river water was intended to be temporary while a pipeline to Lake Huron was built.

“We granted leave to appeal, and after hearing oral argument on defendants’ applications, a majority of this Court expressly affirms the Court of Appeals’ conclusion regarding plaintiffs’ inverse-condemnation claim,” the Michigan Supreme Court said in its opinion. “The Court of Appeals opinion is otherwise affirmed by equal division.”

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article 10 of Michigan’s Constitution “prohibit the taking of private property without just compensation,” the opinion states.

The plaintiffs alleged the change in water source physically damaged their homes’ pipes, service lines and water heaters, and that the contaminated water had impaired the value and marketability of their homes because lenders were hesitant to authorize loans for the real estate in Flint after the water crisis became public knowledge.

“Viewed in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and accepting their factual allegations as true, we hold that the pleadings establish that defendants’ actions were a substantial cause of the decline in plaintiffs’ property value, that defendants took affirmative actions directed at plaintiffs’ property, and that plaintiffs suffered a unique or special injury different in kind, not simply in degree, from the harm suffered by all persons similarly situated,” Justice Richard Bernstein said in the lead opinion. 

The high court also recognized that the plaintiffs’ claims of bodily harm constituted a “recognizable due-process claim.”

“There is obviously no legitimate governmental objective in poisoning citizens,” the lead opinion says. “Plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, are so egregious and outrageous that they shock the contemporary conscience and support a finding of defendants’ deliberate indifference to plaintiffs’ health and safety.”

In the dissenting opinion, Justices Stephen Markman and Brian Zahra said the Flint water crisis class action lawsuit should not be allowed to proceed based on the deadlines to file a claim.

“Because plaintiffs did not file a notice of intent to file a claim or the claim itself within six months following the happening of the event giving rise to the cause of action, this Court should reverse the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the Court of Claims for it to enter an order granting defendants’ motions for summary disposition,” the dissenting opinion states. 

Justice Elizabeth Clement didn’t participate in the proceedings because she had previously been involved in Flint water legal issues as chief legal counsel to Gov. Rick Snyder.

Do you think the Michigan Supreme Court made the right decision? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

The plaintiffs are represented by Julie H. Hurwitz and William H. Goodman of Goodman Hurwitz & James PC; Paul F. Novak and Gregory Stamatopoulos of Weitz & Luxenberg PC; and Beth M. Rivers, Michael L. Pitt and Cary S. McGehee of Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers PC.

The Flint Water Crisis Class Action Lawsuit is Melissa Mays, et al. v. Governor of Michigan, et al., Case No. 157420-2, in Michigan Supreme Court.

Read About More Class Action Lawsuits & Class Action Settlements:

Class Action Lawsuit Seeks To End Detroit Water Shutoffs

Consumer Reports Study Finds Starkey Spring Water Contains Arsenic

How Long Can You Collect LTD Benefits? 

Lemon Law for New Cars | Defective New Vehicle Help