Posts by svertel@secrestwardle.com
Secrest Wardle 2026 Premises Liability Webinar Series — Notice–Knowing What Was Wrong
Secrest Wardle 2026 Premises Liability Webinar Series – The Open and Obvious Defense
No Ownership, No Control, No Causation
Postlewait illustrates the importance of identifying ownership, control, and causation when evaluating claims arising from an accident on a public sidewalk adjoining private property. An abutting landowner is not automatically responsible for every condition existing on a public sidewalk. A plaintiff must establish a legal basis for imposing a duty, including evidence that the landowner…
Read MoreSecrest Wardle MI PIP Monthly–August 2026 Update
Give Chance a Chance–Provocation in Dangerous Animal Cases Under MCL 287.321 is Assessed on a Wholly Objective Standard
For the first time, Michigan’s Court of Appeals has established binding precedent on the meaning of the provocation exception that can prevent an animal from being classified as “dangerous” and, therefore, subjected to euthanasia under MCL 287.321, et seq. That is, provocation under the dangerous animal statute is analyzed under a “wholly objective standard,” similar…
Read MoreA Longer Road to Finality: Michigan Supreme Court Restores NOI Tolling in Wrongful-Death Medical Malpractice Claims
For medical malpractice defendants, Ernest requires a more careful limitations analysis at the outset of any wrongful-death claim. A complaint filed outside the two-year period following issuance of the first letters of authority can no longer be presumed untimely because an NOI given during that period may toll the filing deadline under MCL 600.5856. Ernest…
Read MoreMichigan Supreme Court Revives Dead Letter Consumer Protection Act
By 2007, judicial decisions had rendered the Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) void as to any industry regulated or authorized by law. In Att’y Gen. v Eli Lilly & Co., ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (2026) (Docket No. 165961), the Michigan Supreme Court revoked much of that immunity, restoring the law’s original power. Now…
Read MoreWhen Opting for Reduced PIP Coverage, the Duty to Mitigate Damages Remains but the Fee Schedules Do Not Apply
The duty to mitigate damages is a longstanding one that goes back to the common law. Here, the Michigan Supreme Court merely extended that duty to those who bring their claim in tort rather than no-fault after opting out of PIP benefits due to qualified health insurance coverage. However, the Supreme Court declined to extend…
Read MoreWhat is Fit? Michigan Supreme Court Continues to Shake Up Premises Liability
Since 2023 when the Supreme Court issued its monumental decision in Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, where the open and obvious element of a defective condition was moved from a question of duty to that of breach, the Court has continued to shake up decades’ long case law governing premises liability claims. The…
Read More