Squirrel Cooking Fire Not Covered by Michigan Consumer Protection Act

The Michigan Consumer Protection Act is a broad statute designed to shield consumers from a lot of wrongful conduct by the companies they work with. But even the MCPA can be stretched too thin. For example, a recent court case held that the consumer protection law did not protect a renter from paying for damages caused by a squirrel cooking fire.

Lawyers and judges see some strange situations. In consumer protection cases, they often have to do with defects that don’t make sense and injuries that you would never imagine. But they don’t usually involve squirrels.

A recent unpublished Michigan Court of Appeals case, Travelers Indemnity Company v Pellow, is the exception. The case centered around damage caused by a renter’s boyfriend when he attempted to burn the fur off of a squirrel, and then left the torch on the apartment deck, where it caught fire. Apparently, cooking a squirrel can cause some significant smoke and fire damage, because the apartment complex’s insurance company paid more than $2,000,000.00 to repair the facility. It then sued Pellow to recoup its costs.

Pellow’s lawyers were creative. Because she was asleep when her boyfriend had his squirrel-cooking accident, they argued that she could not be held liable under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act and the Michigan Truth in Renting Act. The MCPA, Pellow argued, prevented a person from being held jointly and severally liable for tort damages. In particular, she referenced MCL 445.903 of the MCPA, which protects consumers against:

• Misrepresentations regarding the need for products or services to correct defects in the consumer’s home to prevent risks to life, health, or safety;
  
• Causing confusion or misunderstanding of a party’s legal rights obligations or remedies; and
  
• Allowing a consumer to waive a right, benefit, or legal immunity, without specific consent.
  

If Pellow’s case had been based on tort theories of negligence or breach of a duty of care, she may have been able to use the MCPA to protect herself from her boyfriend’s poor decisions. But the court didn’t see this as a tort action.

Instead, it interpreted the case as a breach-of-contract action. The MCPA didn’t protect her from signing a contract including joint and several liability for damage caused by residents and guests in her apartment. That included damage caused by attempting to cook a squirrel with a blowtorch. The court held that Pellow could be found liable for the full balance of the insurance company’s costs, all for the actions of someone else.

Dani K. Liblang is a consumer protection attorney at The Liblang Law Firm, PC, in Birmingham, Michigan. She helps consumers fight back against debt collector harassment. If you are facing an aggressive collections company, contact The Liblang Law Firm, PC, today for a free consultation.