In a published Michigan Court of Appeals case, the Court of Appeals considered whether rescission of Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy was appropriate due to his fraudulent misrepresentation when he purchased the policy.
Read More
When litigation involves issues of disputed expert testimony, the trial court serves as a gatekeeper to ensure that the trier of fact is hearing only trustworthy evidence. Expert testimony is admissible if it is both reliable and relevant to the issues being litigated. Daubert v. Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals, Inc. set forth several factors for judicial consideration in evaluating admissibility of scientific or expert opinions
Read More
For a Plaintiff to succeed on a premises liability claim, that plaintiff must establish that the Defendants had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition. Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals made an important ruling which helped to clarify the notice required for a plaintiff to succeed on a premises liability claim.
Read More
The Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that if you make a claim of respondeat superior against the government under MCL 691.1405, your claim will be upheld even if MCL 691.1405 is not explicitly referenced in the complaint.
Read More
Michigan’s highest court has ruled in a unanimous opinion that if you make a materially fraudulent statement at any time when making or pursuing a claim for Michigan PIP (No Fault) benefits, your claim will be denied.
Read More
Michigan auto no-fault laws require an insured to take affirmative action before an auto insurer can reduce the liability limits of an auto insurance policy below the statutorily required minimum coverage of $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident. Failure to do this could spell trouble for the auto insurer.
Read More
The Michigan Court of Appeals in Dean v. Stallworth, considered the trial court’s decision to grant a motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) in an auto negligence case. The issue on appeal of was whether a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether plaintiff incurred an injury that constituted a ‘serious impairment of body function’ under MCL 500.3135(5).
Read More
In a recent Michigan Court of Appeals decision in Pena-Cruz v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., the appellate court considered the trial court’s decision on defendant insurance company’s Motion for Summary Disposition. The trial court had denied the motion to dismiss. The issue was whether plaintiff had permission to use the vehicle at the time of the accident in the context of MCL 500.3113(a) which bars a person from receiving no-fault benefits if, at the time of the accident, they were using a vehicle that ‘was taken unlawfully”.
Read More