Posts by admin
Same As It Ever Was – Merchants Have Only a Limited Duty to Respond to Criminal Acts on Their Premises
This case reinforces the long-held doctrine that a merchant or landowner’s only duty in responding to an independent criminal act occurring in the common areas of their premises is to make reasonable efforts to timely contact the police once a risk of imminent harm is recognized. To access the full article, click here: http://bit.ly/3I8yKKE
Read MoreBack to Basics: Injured Person Lacks Standing to Pursue Bills After Assignment
When a person injured in an automobile accident grants assignments to their medical providers, the providers become “the real parties in interest with respect to their claims for benefits, and only they [can] sue to recover those benefits.” Farrar v SMART, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 358872), slip op at…
Read MoreSecrest Wardle Convinces Court of Appeals to Say No to Secret Agents, Yes to Rescission
“[W]hen an insurance policy is facilitated by an independent insurance agent or broker, the independent insurance agent or broker is considered an agent of the insured rather than an agent of the insurer.” Al-Hajjaj v Hartford Accident and Indem Co, ___ Mich App ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359291); slip op at 4. A 2018…
Read MoreSecrest Wardle Senior Partner Anthony Randazzo Receives Patriot Award
To access the full article, click here: https://bit.ly/3Dmee7Y
Read MoreSecrest Wardle MI PIP Monthly – January 2023 Update
Curb Your Enthusiasm – Curbs, Like Steps, Are Open and Obvious Hazards in Michigan
The open and obvious doctrine in Michigan strikes again. In Wright-Burton v Olympia Dev. of Michigan, LLC, the Michigan Court of Appeals added curbs to the litany of open and obvious hazards in this state; even ones which were allegedly unlit and swarmed by a post-Pistons game crowd leaving the arena. The Court held that…
Read MoreIs Plaintiff Operating a Vehicle? The Answer to this Question is an Important One
The plain language of MCL 500.3135(2)(c) requires that a plaintiff operate his or her own vehicle at the time the injury occurs. This case demonstrates that this analysis has not changed. Defendants must show that Plaintiff operated his own vehicle at the time his injury occurred. In this case, the Court held that there was…
Read MorePreprocurement or Postprocurement Fraud? That is the Question
In this no-fault insurance coverage dispute, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court’s orders granting summary disposition in favor of the insurance company and remanded for further proceedings consistent with the holding in Meemic Ins Co v Fortson, 506 Mich 287 (2020). The trial court was tasked with the responsibility of deciding whether or…
Read MoreCourt Overturns Summary Disposition After Finding Evidentiary Foundation Lacking in Defendant’s Motion
Margot Parraghi v Edward Chodyniecki, et al., Docket No. 358829 (Mich Ct App, November 2, 2022) found that summary disposition was improperly granted where the moving party failed to properly lay the documentary foundation to support its basis for summary disposition. To access the full article, click here: http://bit.ly/3iopZnd
Read MoreTreating Physician Versus Expert Physician: Having Your Cake and Wanting to Eat it Too
In Johnson v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, two treating physicians’ uncooperativeness in discovery within an underlying PIP case ultimately led to the Court of Appeals’ ruling that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to impose a lesser penalty of sanctions for Plaintiff’s discovery violations versus its granting of summary disposition. Furthermore,…
Read More