Listen to this article
The Michigan Gaming Control and Revenue Act (MGCRA) did not preclude a plaintiff from asserting claims of unjust enrichment and fraudulent misrepresentation against defendant MGM Grand Detroit, LLC, the Court of Appeals has ruled in a published decision.
“Here we must ask whether the Legislature intended to abrogate the common-law claims at issue in this case when it enacted the MGCRA. As did our Supreme Court in Davis [v BetMGM, LLC, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2025) (Docket No. 166281)] when considering the [Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA)], we note that merely because the MGCRA is comprehensive legislation does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that common-law claims are inconsistent with, and therefore supplanted by, the MGCRA,” Judge Michael F. Gadola wrote for a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals.
“Upon reconsideration in this case, we conclude that plaintiff’s pursuit of her common-law claims in the district court was not ‘inconsistent’ with the comprehensive statutory scheme of the MGCRA. … We do not perceive an intention by the Legislature to abrogate a patron’s common-law claims that are not inconsistent with the MGCRA,” Gadola stated.
“In light of our Supreme Court’s reversal of this Court’s decision in Davis and its clarification of this Court’s decision in Kraft [v Detroit Entertainment, LLC, 261 Mich App 534; 683 NW2d 200 (2004)], we conclude that the Legislature did not intend to abrogate the common-law claims of plaintiff in this case, which are not inconsistent with the MGCRA. We therefore affirm the judgment of the circuit court, which denied defendant’s application for leave to appeal the order of the district court that denied defendant summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims,” he added.
The 10-page decision is Jewell v. MGM Grand Detroit, LLC; MiLW No. 07-110483.
