This is the first article of a three-part series discussing the recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Young v Vandermeer, Docket No. 349093. In this case, Plaintiff submitted nine claims against Defendants after their business partnership soured. This article will discuss the Court’s ruling on the civil conspiracy claim.
Based on Michigan Law, a claim of civil conspiracy requires a combination of two or more persons, by some connection, to accomplish a criminal or unlawful purpose (or a lawful purpose by criminal or unlawful means) or by proof that the defendants acted in concert to accomplish some underlying tortious act. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, husband and wife, were acting in concert to engage in criminal acts when they were dealing with customers of their former business.
The defendant wife was the primary business partner with Plaintiff. Evidence showed that her husband was involved in ministerial tasks to assist with day-to-day operations, but nothing more. The Court found that this evidence did not permit an inference that the husband acted in concert with his wife to commit any underlying tort or crime.
The key takeaway from the Court’s ruling on this claim is that evidence that a specific defendant performed minor or ministerial tasks is not enough to satisfy the “acted in concert” requirement of a civil conspiracy claim. To be held jointly liable as a co-conspirator, the defendant must act with intent to commit the claimed tort or crime.
The full text of the opinion can be found at: https://casetext.com/case/young-v-vandermeer
