This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P filed a complaint against D, asserting that Ps directed D to turn off the water to their vacant property. D provided P with a bill indicating that it was a final statement. In reliance upon D's representation and the final billing statement, Ps reasonably believed that the water was turned off. D did not turn off the water to the property. The pipes in the home froze and broke, flooding the home and damaging the structure and P's personal property. D asserted immunity. Ps contend that they have pled a cause of action based upon a theory of detrimental reliance, or promissory estoppel, and, therefore, the doctrine of governmental immunity does not apply. The court concluded the action was in tort and immunity applied. The complaint was dismissed, and P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.