Summary
declining to extend the continuity of the enterprise extension to provide redress to judgment creditors because the exception was "designed to protect injured victims of defective products . . . ."
Summary of this case from Ventures v. Custom Nutrition Labs., L.L.C.Opinion
No. 130283.
November 1, 2006.
Appeal from the Court of Appeals No. 257127.
Summary Dispositions November 1, 2006.
On October 11, 2006, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2005, judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the application is again considered. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Where, as here, a successor corporation acquires the assets of a predecessor corporation and does not explicitly assume the liabilities of the predecessor, the traditional rule of corporate successor non-liability applies. See Foster v Cone-Blanchard Machine Co, 460 Mich 696, 702 (1999). Because an exception designed to protect injured victims of defective products rests upon policy reasons not applicable to a judgment creditor, the Court declines to expand the exception to the traditional rule set forth in Turner v Bituminous Casualty Co, 397 Mich 406 (1976), to cases in which the plaintiff is a judgment creditor.
I would grant leave to appeal. The issue of whether the continuity of the enterprise doctrine recognized in Turner v Bituminous Casualty Co, 397 Mich 406 (1976), extends beyond products liability actions warrants further discussion and closer attention from this Court.