Legal News
A couple who bought a home that was later discovered to have a history of mold, asbestos, and flooding failed in their bid to reverse a trial court’s judgment in favor of the home seller. The couple contended the trial court erred when it denied their motion to add an expert witness to testify about the home’s value when it was sold.
Read MoreIn 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 MoreWhen 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 MoreFor 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 MoreThe 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 MoreMichigan’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 MoreMichigan 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 MoreThe 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
