Michigan Court of Appeals reverses summary judgment in Consumers Energy gas explosion case

July 7, 2026 By John McCoy 0 Comments

In an unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a trial court decision granting summary judgment to Consumers Energy Co., a natural gas utility, in a lawsuit brought by Dmytro Maksymenko, who lived in a home that exploded, causing him severe burn injuries.

The home was owned by his mother. She was not home at the time of the explosion. This was a natural gas line. The line ran from the gas main to the meter at the home, then downstream of the meter into the home and then to a furnace closet inside the home. Prior to the explosion, no one had smelled anything that they related to gas.

During the joint scene exam, six butane tanks were recovered from the property, three of which were empty. The plaintiff claimed he never used the butane tanks. Marijuana plants and other processing equipment were also found on the property. A leak test of the yard line up to the meter inlet was completed with no leaks detected. A leak test of the gas line within the home found three leaks in the gas line.

A month or so before the explosion, Consumers Energy replaced the copper gas line in the yard, as it was “vintage,” with a line made of plastic. Consumers Energy owned the gas line in the yard and the meter attached to the home. The plaintiff’s mother owned the gas line inside the home that leaked.

In order to install the new yard line, Consumers Energy had to “missile the road,” which requires the use of a pneumatic tool that uses air pressure to bore through the ground. Then, hand shovels were used to dig a hole within 4 to 5 ft. of the meter. Then a “rat tail” or trencher was used to cut a trench. After the new line was connected, it was pressure tested with air up to the house. Then gas was introduced into the new gas line. The techs then went into the home with someone there and performed a “shadow test,” which indicated there were no leaks in the gas line in the house. The techs then soap-tested any open connections to find any leaks. The trench was backfilled and the appliances were lit.

The appellate court acknowledged that the general rule is that “[t]he piping and conduits that he uses belong to him and are ordinarily under his control, and it is his duty to keep them in repair. Ordinarily, a gas company which does not install pipes in the customers’ building has no control over them and is not responsible for their condition, maintenance or defective installation, nor for injuries caused by gas escaping from a leak therein, of which it has no knowledge.”

The court noted the exception to this general rule applied here as a gas supplier may be held “liable for defective conditions inside a user’s premises only where the gas supplier was negligent in repairing or modifying the system within the premises of the end user.”

Here, the plaintiffs, through expert testimony, alleged that Consumers Energy was negligent in the manner in which it conducted its boring work, as it was done recklessly, such that it impacted the gas lines within the home and caused the leak that led to the explosion.

The plaintiffs also claim that Consumers Energy did not perform all the testing required by Michigan statutes when putting the gas system back into service. It did not pressure test the gas line inside the home, as it did not own that line.

However, the appellate court concluded that whether Consumers Energy had a duty to pressure test the gas line inside the home is a question of fact for the jury to decide.

Consumers Energy claims it met the requirement to do a pressure test of the gas lines in the home when it soaped all visible connections. The appellate court noted that this argument was not raised in any briefing before the court, so it would ignore it. There is a general rule at the appellate level that all arguments must be raised in briefing, or they are waived. The court advised that this defense could be raised at the trial court.

We will monitor this case and report back with any updates. But the important point is to complete all necessary leak testing. Document the testing and light appliances inside the home. This is the safe course.

John V. McCoy is with McCoy, Leavitt, Laskey LLC. His firm represents industry members nationally. He can be reached at jmccoy@MLLlaw.com or at 262-522-7007.

Featured homepage image: izzetugutmen/iStock / Getty Images Plus/Getty Images

Why immediate response matters in propane accident investigations

Why additional insured provisions matter

Defending odor fade claims