September 18, 2026
In a matter of first impression, the Court of Appeals concluded that an Airbnb guest of a condominium owner is an invitee for purposes of premises liability such that the condominium association owed the highest duty of care. Michael Joseph Letvin v The Village at Grand Traverse et al.
Defendant The Village hired a contractor (A.M.O. Inc) to provide snow removal and de-icing services for its parking lots and roads when the accumulation of snow exceeded two inches, and to salt surfaces anytime that snow was removed. Additionally, A.M.O. was contracted to salt “previously identified potentially hazardous areas” even when the two-inch snow threshold had not been met. The Village did not perform any of these services itself and did not oversee A.M.O.’s work.
Plaintiff and his wife booked a stay at a condominium within The Village through Airbnb. They arrived on January 20th, a “snowy and cold” day, and there was visible ice in the parking lot at that time. Later the next day, visible ice, snow and slush remained in the parking lot and Plaintiff fell suffering injuries. Snow and ice remained in the parking lot the following day as seen in photographs taken by Plaintiff’s wife. Plaintiff brought a premises liability action against The Village, which moved for summary disposition claiming that it owed a duty to Plaintiff only as a licensee, and that duty was not breached. The Circuit Court granted The Village’s motion concluding that Plaintiff was a licensee, not an invitee, and The Village did not breach its duty.
In first addressing whether Plaintiff was a licensee or an invitee, the Court of Appeals noted a conflict between two recent decisions. In granting summary disposition to The Village, the Circuit Court relied upon Gabrielson v Woods Condo Ass’n Inc, 349 Mich App 478 (2024), in which the Court of Appeals concluded that a plaintiff who rented a room from a condo owner and was injured in a common area of the condo association was a licensee because she lacked a direct business relationship with the condo association. Six months after Gabrielson was decided, however, the Michigan Supreme Court decided Janini v London Townhouses Condo Ass’n, 514 Mich 86 (2024), and concluded that the relationship between a condo association and a condo unit owner was like that between a landlord and a tenant because the association assumed a duty to maintain common elements of the complex and the condo owners ceded their control over those areas.
The Letvin Court further noted that in Stanley v Town Square Coop, 203 Mich App 143 (1993), the Court of Appeals found the plaintiff’s use of the parking lot was related to the cooperative association’s pecuniary interests such that the plaintiff was an invitee of the association. Applying the “first-out rule”, the Letvin Court found it was bound to follow the Stanley decision, which predated Gabrielson. The Letvin Court further recognized that Janini overruled a decision relied upon by the Gabrielson Court thus abrogating Gabrielson with respect to the duty owed by a condo association to renters of individual units who are injured in common areas maintained by the association. Applying the reasoning of the Stanley and Janini decisions, the Letvin Court concluded that just as part of the rent paid by a tenant to a landlord is the consideration for the right to invite others onto the property, part of the fee paid to a condo association is the consideration for maintaining the common areas in a safe condition for condo owners and their guests. Similarly, in consideration for the condo owners’ ceding their authority over common areas of the association, the association owed a duty to maintain those premises in a safe condition for unit owners and their guests, including Airbnb renters. Therefore, Plaintiff was an invitee and The Village owed him a duty to maintain its common areas in a safe condition.
The Letvin Court further noted that the evidence posed by Plaintiff and The Village created a genuine issue of material fact whether The Village took reasonable steps within a reasonable amount of time to maintain its premises and thus breached its duty. As a result, the Letvin Court reversed the granting of summary disposition in favor of The Village, and remanded the matter to the Circuit Court for further proceedings.