Posts by svertel@secrestwardle.com
Michigan 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 MoreSecrest Wardle MI PIP Monthly – July 2026 Update
No Evidence, No Defect, No Causation
Smith reinforces the fact that uncertainty can break the chain of causation needed to trace a claim back to a defendant’s alleged fault. Plaintiffs must establish a clear chain of causation, free of speculation, between the alleged breach and the injury. Other factors, like previous health issues, lack of clear evidence, and speculation may breach…
Read MoreCourt of Appeals Reaffirms Trial Courts’ Discretion to Empanel a Jury Absent Attorney Compliance with MCR 2.508’s Requirements
A jury demand is one of the most important aspects of litigation. Indeed, it is a fundamental aspect of our judicial system. Yet, in civil litigation, litigants too often fail to satisfy the requirements of MCR 2.508 when requesting a jury trial. Three simple things must be done to properly demand a jury trial: (1)…
Read MoreNo Better Than a Placebo
SNM PT v Citizens, No. 375649, at *3 (Mich Ct App July 17, 2026) holds that treatment that is experimental and not generally accepted in the medical community is not reasonable or necessary under the No-Fault Act unless it is demonstrated to be efficacious. Trial courts are entitled to grant motions for summary disposition in…
Read MoreThird-Party Trial Win by Jeffrey Bullard, Sr.
Court Extends Invitee Status to Airbnb Guests and Raises Duty of Condominium Associations
In Letvin, the Michigan Court of Appeals continued to liberalize premises liability law, reiterating the Supreme Court’s decision in Janini v London Townhouses Condo Ass’n, 514 Mich 86 (2024), which allowed condominium owners to sue their condominium associations for injuries sustained in common areas. Letvin extended Janini to Airbnb renters, who can now sue their…
Read MoreOwner’s Loss: Supreme Court Issues Guidance on Ownership Under the No-Fault Act
In Abdulla v Progressive, the Supreme Court denied no-fault benefits to a commercial driver who owned an uninsured truck. In doing so, the Court reversed the lower court, which awarded benefits despite the truck’s lack of insurance because it was technically titled to an LLC, albeit an LLC that the driver solely owned. The Supreme…
Read More