From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc.

Supreme Court of Michigan
May 12, 2006
475 Mich. 851 (Mich. 2006)

Opinion

No. 128273.

May 12, 2006.

SC: 128273.


Leave to Appeal Denied.

The application for leave to appeal the February 8, 2005, judgment of the Court of Appeals and the application for leave to appeal as cross-appellant are denied, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court. Reported below: 266 Mich App 1.


The Court of Appeals was correct in holding that the $100,000 cap on damages is an aggregate, rather than a per commission, maximum. It was also correct in holding that MCL 600.2961(5)(b) is ambiguous.


Although the Court of Appeals correctly held that the $100,000 cap on damages is an aggregate maximum, rather than a per commission maximum, the Court of Appeals erred in holding that MCL 600.2961(5)(b) is ambiguous. As this Court held in In re Certified Question (Kenneth Henes Special Projects v Continental Biomass Industries, Inc), 468 Mich 109, 118 (2003), MCL 600.2961(5)(b) is unambiguous. MCL 600.2961(5)(b) unambiguously provides that the principal must pay the sales representative, "[i]f the principal is found to have intentionally failed to pay the commission when due, an amount equal to 2 times the amount of commissions due but not paid as required by this section or $100,000.00, whichever is less." That is, MCL 600.2961(5)(b) unambiguously provides for a $100,000 cap on damages as a whole.


Summaries of

Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc.

Supreme Court of Michigan
May 12, 2006
475 Mich. 851 (Mich. 2006)
Case details for

Linsell v. Applied Handling, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:MARY ANNE LINSELL, Plaintiff-Appellee, Cross-Appellant, v. APPLIED…

Court:Supreme Court of Michigan

Date published: May 12, 2006

Citations

475 Mich. 851 (Mich. 2006)