Mastracci v. L5 Fitness Holdings LLC

1

JOSEPH MASTRACCI, Personal Representative for the ESTATE OF CRAIG MASTRACCI, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L5 FITNESS HOLDINGS LLC, L5 FITNESS MICHIGAN LLC, doing business as ORANGETHEORY FITNESS, OT MICHIGAN PARTNERSHIP, ANNA SHAHINIAN, and TESS HOCHSTEIN, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 365207

Court of Appeals of Michigan

October 21, 2024

UNPUBLISHED

Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 21-014049-NO

Before: Gadola, C.J., and O'Brien and Maldonado, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff as the personal representative of the Estate of Craig Mastracci, appeals as of right the trial court's order granting defendants, L5 Fitness Holdings, LLC, L5 Fitness Michigan, LLC, doing business as Orangetheory Fitness, OT Michigan Partnership, LLC, Anna Shahinian, and Tess Hochstein's motion for summary disposition pursuant to 2.116(C)(10). We affirm.

I. FACTS

On February 6, 2021, plaintiff's decedent, Craig Mastracci suffered a fatal heart attack after he left the Detroit Orangetheory Fitness (OTF) studio. Mastracci was a member at OTF. When he arrived for class, Mastracci informed the instructor, defendant Shahinian, that he was going to "take it easy" because he had a torn calf muscle. About 10 minutes before class ended, Mastracci left the studio to sit on a bench in the lobby because he could not catch his breath. The OTF employees asked Mastracci how he felt, if he needed any assistance, or if he wanted one of the employees to call someone for him. After refusing all offers of assistance, Mastracci told Hochstein, the studio manager, that he was going to drive to Henry Ford Hospital, which was only a few blocks from OTF. Hochstein walked Mastracci to his car. The next week Hochstein learned that after he left OTF, Mastracci had been found unresponsive in his car in front of Henry Ford Hospital and that he died in the emergency department.

Plaintiff filed a complaint claiming negligence, gross negligence, and wrongful death. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary disposition finding that the waiver that Mastracci signed waived any claims of negligence and that plaintiff failed to establish gross negligence. Plaintiff now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred by granting defendants' motion for summary disposition because defendants failed to establish that Mastracci signed the waiver, that the events underlying plaintiff's claims were not within the scope of the waiver, the waiver was unconscionable and could not be enforced, and that plaintiff established a genuine issue of material fact that defendants were grossly negligent.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews the existence and interpretation of a contract de novo as questions of law. Kloian v Domino's Pizza, LLC, 273 Mich.App. 449, 452; 733 N.W.2d 766 (2006). This Court reviews a motion for summary disposition de novo. Clay v Doe, 311 Mich.App. 359, 362; 876 N.W.2d 248 (2015). Summary disposition is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(10) if, "[e]xcept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law." The moving party "must specifically identify the issues as to which the moving party believes there is no genuine issue as to any material fact" and support its motion with documentary evidence. Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 120; 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999), citing MCR 2.116(G)(4). A court reviewing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(10) must consider the substantively admissible evidence offered in opposition to the motion. Maiden, 461 Mich. at 121. To survive summary disposition, the opposing party must set forth specific facts establishing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Id. at 120. A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence presented "leave[s] open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ." Debano-Griffin v Lake Co, 493 Mich. 167, 175; 828 N.W.2d 634 (2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). "The trial court is not permitted to assess credibility, weigh the evidence, or resolve factual disputes, and if material evidence conflicts, it is not appropriate to grant a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10)." Barnes v 21st Century Premier Ins Co, 334 Mich.App. 531, 540; 965 N.W.2d 121 (2020) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

III. WAIVER OF LIABILITY

Plaintiff first argues that defendants failed to establish that Mastracci signed the waiver of liability. We disagree.

The waiver of liability provides:

Assumption of Risk, Release, Waiver of Liability, and Indemnification: We urge you and all clients to obtain a physical examination from a physician prior to initiating any exercise program. Orangetheory® Fitness ("OTF") classes are not designed for individuals with known heart disease with or without functional impairment. You understand and agree that there is a risk of injury associated with participation in any exercise program and that there exists the possibility for certain conditions occurring during or following training and/or exercise. In recognition of the possible dangers connected with any physical activity, by signing below, you understand, acknowledge, agree, and hereby voluntarily accept all risk and responsibility associated with the services provided and use of any of the facilities at any OTF studio. You acknowledge that it is your responsibility to disclose any medical condition or medication that could limit or prevent you from performing physical activity. You acknowledge that we may require you to provide written physician approval before you may use or participate in any physical activity at the Studio. You acknowledge that you may decrease or stop at any time any physical activity you perform at the Studio and that it is your obligation to inform the Studio's staff of any medical symptoms or issue that arise while at the Studio. You hereby waive all claims, assume all liability, and release, hold harmless, indemnify, and agree to defend us, Ultimate Fitness Group, LLC, the franchisor of OTF and the entity who granted us contractual authority to independently own and operate our franchised location ("UFG"), the UFG Parties (defined below), any other OTF studio, any owner of any other OTF studio you may visit, and any of our or their respective affiliates, successors, assigns, agents, representatives, and employees, from liability for any injury, claim, cause of action, suit, demand, and damages (including, without limitation, personal, bodily, or mental injury, property damage, economic loss, consequential damages, and punitive damages), arising from or related to (1) your failure to disclose any pre-existing conditions, limitations, or sensitivities; (2) your presence on the premises of any OTF studio; (3) your participation in any OTF class or use of any equipment at any OTF studio; and/or (4) any negligence on our part (including our employees) or on the part of any employee of any other OTF studio. You further expressly agree that this Assumption of Risk, Release, Waiver of Liability, and Indemnification is intended to be as broad and inclusive as permitted by law…. You expressly agree that if any portion of this Assumption of Risk, Release, Waiver of Liability, Indemnification is held invalid, the balance shall be valid and continue in full legal force and effect. These provisions are binding on you, your estate, family, heirs, administrators, personal representatives, and assigns.

Below this language is a signature bearing the name "Craig Mastracci," dated November 7, 2019. It is also countersigned by an OTF staff member whose signature is illegible.

Evidence offered in support of a motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) may only be considered to the extent that the content or substance would be admissible as evidence. Barnard Mfg Co Inc v Gates Performance Engineering, Inc, 285 Mich.App. 362, 373; 775 N.W.2d 618 (2009). Although the evidence must be substantively admissible, it does not have to be in admissible form to be considered. Id. Therefore, the question is whether Mastracci's signature would be admissible at trial with a proper foundation.

MRE 901 provides examples to satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of evidence.^[1] A nonexpert could testify regarding his or her opinion whether the handwriting was genuine based on a familiarity with it. MRE 901(b)(2). In addition, an expert witness or the trier of fact could compare a signature offered as evidence with an authenticated specimen. MRE 901(b)(3).

Mastracci's signature need not be in admissible form to be considered at the summary disposition stage. See Barnard Mfg Co Inc, 285 Mich.App. at 373. At trial, defendants could use any of the methods in MRE 901 to authenticate Mastracci's signature. But to survive summary disposition, plaintiff must set forth specific facts establishing a genuine issue of material fact for trial. Maiden, 461 Mich. at 120. Plaintiff has failed to set forth specific facts demonstrating that Mastracci did not sign the waiver. As such, plaintiff failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact regarding Mastracci's signature.

Plaintiff also argues that the language of the contract was ambiguous because the waiver imposed a duty upon the member to inform OTF of any medical issues or symptoms resulting from the workout. Plaintiff asserts that this language could have led the members who signed the release to believe that defendants would aid and assist them if they faced a medical emergency. Therefore, plaintiff argues, when members signed the release, they did not believe that they were waiving liability regarding defendants' failure to offer them medical assistance.

Contract law governs disputes involving the terms of a release. Radu v Herndon...