For the last decade, Drew W. Broaddus has devoted his practice to appellate advocacy. Mr. Broaddus has a wealth of experience handling a variety of litigation and insurance-related matters. He serves as Chair of Secrest Wardle’s Appellate Practice Group and a Chair of the Insurance Coverage Practice Group. Mr. Broaddus joined the Firm having managed all aspects of defense litigation for over seven years. Since then, he has obtained excellent results in appeals dealing with a wide range of subjects, as demonstrated by the reported decisions listed below.

Mr. Broaddus is a member of the Michigan State Bar’s Appellate Practice and Insurance and Indemnity Law Sections. From 2017-2020, he served on the State Bar’s Appellate Practice Section Council. Mr. Broaddus was named to Super Lawyers Magazine‘s list of Michigan Rising Stars from 2012 to 2017 and named to Super Lawyers Magazine‘s list of Michigan Super Lawyers from 2018 through the present in the Appellate category. He was also named to DBusiness Magazine’s list of Top Lawyers in 2017. In 2019, Mr. Broaddus was named to Grand Rapids Magazine‘s Top Lawyers list in the Insurance Law category. Additionally, Mr. Broaddus has received an AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rating by Martindale-Hubbell.

In November 2018, Mr. Broaddus began authoring the Insurance Coverage Report published in Michigan Defense Trial Counsel’s (MDTC) Michigan Defense Quarterly. The Insurance Coverage Report is a quarterly summary of recent insurance coverage appellate decisions. Through his involvement in the Insurance and Indemnity Law Section of the State Bar, Mr. Broaddus published Bad Faith: What It Is, and What It Is Not, The Journal of Insurance & Indemnity Law, April 2017, p 3.

Mr. Broaddus is an active member of the State Bar of Michigan and is licensed to practice in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Sixth Circuits, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, and the Eastern District of Michigan Bankruptcy Court.

Mr. Broaddus’ appellate successes, since joining Secrest Wardle in 2010, include:

Commercial and Business Law

Kooman v Boulder Bluff Condominiums, __ Mich App __; __ NW2d __ (2022) (Docket No. 347653) persuaded the Michigan Court of Appeals that federal courts’ disposition of plaintiff’s disability discrimination claim, which arose out of the same facts (see below) was dispositive of plaintiff’s state law discrimination claim, based on collateral estoppel).

Gourmet Deli Ren Cen, Inc v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 2022 WL 1714202 (Mich App, 2022) (business interruption coverage did not apply to losses flowing COVID-19 related “lockdown” orders, where neither the orders nor the virus itself resulted in direct physical harm to the insured’s restaurant).

Massage Bliss, Inc v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co, 2022 WL 1591925 (Mich App, 2022) (same as above, but the insured was a spa and salon).

Northeast Comanche Tribe, Inc v Int’l Comanche Society, 2021 WL 1940876 (Mich App, 2021) (persuaded the Court of Appeals that this dispute over control of an international society of private aircraft enthusiasts was properly dismissed based on the plaintiff’s breach of a stipulated order relating to the use of member information).

Kooman v Boulder Bluff Condominiums, 833 Fed Appx 623 (CA 6, 2020) (U.S. District Court’s dismissal of disability discrimination claim was affirmed; unit owner’s request to install a handrail was handled reasonably as a matter of law).

Levitt v Bloem, et al, 2019 WL 2194568 (Mich App, 2019) (summary disposition affirmed in  libel/slander/defamation case that arose out of our insured’s work as defense counsel in a  prior suit involving the same plaintiff).

Berisaj v Lifetime Fitness, 2019 WL 942370 (Mich App, 2019) (summary disposition affirmed in suit against personal trainer and fitness center; plaintiff claimed that pre-existing back pain was exacerbated by exercise regimen; ordinary negligence claim was barred by waiver and there was no evidence of any “gross negligence” or “willful and wanton misconduct”).

Rumsey v Harem Urban Lounge, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 18, 2017 (Docket No. 338457) (successfully defended plaintiff’s appeal from a trial court ruling that dismissed her Dram Shop suit for failure to satisfy MCL 436.1801(4)’s pre-suit written notice requirement).

Travelers Property and Casualty v Allianz, ACE, and Ironshore Insurance, 2017 WL 1033755 (Mich App, 2017), lv den 501 Mich 910 (2017)  (persuaded the trial court and later the Court of Appeals that Secrest Wardle’s client, Ironshore, did not have any exposure for underlying loss – a very serious personal injury settlement – until all other insurance had been exhausted, based upon the plain language of the Ironshore policy’s excess clause when read in conjunction with the “other insurance” provisions of Allianz and ACE’s policies).

Seils v Fraternal Order of Police, 310 Mich App 132 (2015), lv den 498 Mich 949 (2015) (potential Dram Shop liability did not extend to premeditated murder, as this could not, as a matter of law, be a foreseeable result of an unlawful sale of alcohol; undisputed facts established a lack of proximate cause).

Caver v Sodexo, Inc, 2015 WL 1814149 (Mich App, 2015) (our client, a labor broker, owed no duty to the plaintiff, who allegedly slipped and fell as a result of the negligence of a worker who was hired by, but not trained or supervised by, our client).

Enders v Borg, 2014 WL 4723591 (Mich App, 2014) (persuaded the appellate panel that our corporate client had no vicarious liability for an after-hours automobile accident caused by a high level employee; summary disposition in our client’s favor was affirmed despite the plaintiff’s counsel’s unrelenting allegations that the employee had actually been leaving a work function and then conspired to cover it up).

Stampone v Hieshetter, et al., 567 Fed Appx 69 (CA 3, 2014), cert den 135 S Ct 878; 190 L Ed 2d 700 (2014)(suit against law firm and others, based upon the issuance of an allegedly “harassing” subpoena in Michigan, was dismissed due to the lack of personal jurisdiction over any of the defendants in New Jersey).

Wegrzyn v Am Family Ins Co, 2013 WL 4041588 (Ohio App, 2013), lv den 999 NE2d 697 (Ohio, 2013) (products liability suit against distributor of waterline was dismissed, and the appellate court affirmed, where there was “no evidence that the subject waterline was manufactured or sold in the condition in which it was installed”).

Dombrowski v Laurel Chapel, 2012 WL 1448309 (Mich App, 2012) (where our corporate client was defending both a personal injury claim and a cross-claim for contractual indemnity – and the trial court had ruled that both claims should proceed to trial – our efforts led the Court of Appeals to reverse and grant our client’s motions for summary disposition as to both claims).

Anderson v David & Wierenga, P.C., 2012 WL 1193261 (Mich App, 2012), lv den 492 Mich 869 (2012) (legal malpractice action, arising out of the purchase of an automobile dealership, was properly dismissed because the malpractice suit was not filed within two years after the end of the underlying attorney-client relationship).

Power Play Intern Inc v Reddy, 2011 WL 4424341 (Mich App, 2011) (trial court improperly imposed liquidated damages where such relief was not available under the plain language of the parties’ agreement).

Lahood-Sarkis v Gardella Homes, Inc, 2011 WL 4811762 (Mich App, 2011) (residential builder owed no duty to children of purchaser, either in contract or in tort, for alleged construction defects; builder did not breach any duty that was “separate and distinct” from the construction contract, and the plaintiffs were not third-party beneficiaries of that contract).

Gardella Homes, Inc v Lahood-Sarkis, 2011 WL 4810984 (Mich App, 2011) (in collection action brought by residential home builder, defendants were not entitled to arbitrate counter-claims alleging negligent construction, where those claims had been waived by subsequent modification of construction contract).

Domestic Relations

Hieshetter v Hieshetter, 2015 US Dist LEXIS 140306 (WD Mich, 2015) affirmed by unpublished order of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, issued June 30, 2016 (Docket No. 15-2321) (persuaded the U.S. District Court to dismiss the plaintiff’s suit on the grounds that it essentially just re-hashed her state court appeal from an order terminating spousal support, and there was no federal jurisdiction over such a claim; 6th Circuit affirmed).

Hieshetter v Hieshetter, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, October 24, 2014 (Docket No. 320180), lv den 497 Mich 1013 (2015) (successfully argued to appellate courts that there were no grounds for reviewing trial court’s order that terminated spousal support pursuant to the terms of the parties’ consent judgment for divorce).

General Negligence

Harris v City of Detroit, 2022 WL 1509109 (Mich App, 2022) (successfully argued that the City had immunity for operation of cemetery, which allegedly misplaced plaintiff’s husband’s body).

Estate of Burd by Burd v Thompson Block Partners, Inc, 2021 WL 1941739 (Mich App, 2021) (summary disposition affirmed where the estate of a worker killed during the demolition of a historic building attempted to impose liability on generally contractor; common work area doctrine did not apply and general contractor did not have possession or control of building).

Patrick v Edmar Manufacturing, Inc, 2020 WL 3397396 (Mich App, 2020) (summary disposition affirmed based on exclusive remedy provision of Workers’ Compensation Act, despite plaintiff’s claim that intentional tort exception applied).

Ruppel v Hall, 2020 WL 1963981 (Mich App, 2020) (plaintiff was accidentally kicked by a co-participant in a yoga class;  in a reversal of the trial court’s finding, the Court of Appeals held that the risk of such an accident was foreseeable as a matter of law and therefore plaintiff’s negligence claim was governed by “reckless-misconduct standard”).

Rutledge v Suffolk Court Apartments, 2019 WL 6340949 (Mich App, 2019), lv den 944 NW2d 694 (2020) (apartment complex had no duty to protect minor tenant from off-premises motor vehicle accident; plaintiff argued that layout of the complex forced pedestrians to cross a busy road in order to access nearby businesses).

Whitby v Wright, 2015 WL 4390061 (Mich App, 2015) (farm owner had no liability to the plaintiff where a cow escaped from its enclosure, was hit by a motor vehicle, and then “stomped” on the plaintiff as he tried to assist; there was no evidence that the farm owner was negligent in his construction or maintenance of the enclosure and the panel rejected plaintiff’s res ipsa loquitur argument as livestock can escape in the absence of negligence).

Cronk v De Jager Construction, 2015 WL 4391308 (Mich App, 2015) (general contractor owed no duty to employee of subcontractor who was injured on construction site, where the plaintiff was unable to establish that the common work area doctrine applied).

McGhee v Hybrid Logistics, Inc, 599 Fed Appx 259 (CA 6, 2015) (purchaser of steel coils owed no common law duty to truck driver, employed by an independent contractor, who was injured while loading the coils onto a truck).

Markabani v Al-Rekabi, 2014 WL 2481905 (Mich App, 2014) (third-party automobile negligence suit was properly dismissed based upon the plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to requests for admissions; resulting admissions provided the basis for defendant’s motion for summary disposition).

Kolley v Adult Protective Services, 725 F3d 581, 584 (CA 6, 2013) (successfully defended a group foster care facility and two of its employees from a 42 USC 1983/intentional tort suit brought by parents whose child had been temporarily removed from their home due to suspected abuse).

Martin v City of Ecorse, 2013 WL 466374 (Mich App, 2013) (because there was no evidence that the City knew or should have known of the pothole that allegedly caused plaintiff’s trip and fall, the City could not be held liable under the sidewalk exception to governmental immunity).

Thornberry v Grand Trunk W. R.R., 776 F Supp 2d 453 (ED Mich, 2011) (obtained summary judgment of co-defendant’s cross-claim for common law indemnity and contribution, which arose out of a railroad worker’s on-the-job injury).

Litten v Barton Malow Co, 2011 WL 5866927 (Mich App, 2011), lv den 491 Mich 910 (2012) (general contractor owed no duty to employee of subcontractor who was injured on construction site, where the plaintiff was unable to establish that the common work area doctrine applied).

Insurance Coverage

Cousineau v Cousineau, 2022 WL 1711703 (Mich App, 2022) (successfully defended claim for underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits on the grounds that the underlying motor vehicle negligence claim failed under the sudden emergency doctrine; allegedly at-fault motorist unexpectedly encountered a patch of black ice).

J&J Castor v Home-Owners In Co, 2021 WL 3700454 (Mich App, 2021) (no actual cash value (“ACV”) coverage for build collapse where ACV was optional coverage predicated on the insured repairing or rebuilding “as soon as reasonably possible” after loss, and insured had no plan to rebuild 7 years post-loss).

Council v Allstate Vehicle & Prop Ins Co, 2021 WL 646827 (Mich App, 2021) (no coverage for fire loss under homeowner’s policy where insured grossly inflated the value of the home in his application for insurance; this material misrepresentation allowed the insurer to declare the policy void at its inception).

Gomez v Farm Bureau (On Reconsideration), 2019 WL 2016044 (Mich App, 2019), lv den 932 NW2d 634 (2019) (reversed trial court’s denial of our motion for summary disposition in uninsured motorist claim; case dismissed based on existence of other insurance covering same bodily injury, and offset language of our policy).

Growe v Home-Owners, 2017 WL 1034550 (Mich App, 2017) (holding that “owned vehicle” exclusion in Home-Owners’ UIM policy was free of ambiguity and did not render the UIM coverage illusory, reversing the trial court; claimant was allegedly injured while riding a motorcycle he owned but did not insure through Home-Owners; Court of Appeals granted our interlocutory application and later held that Home-Owners was entitled to summary disposition).

Bakri v Sentinel, 2016 Mich App LEXIS 1187 (Mich App, 2016), lv den 500 Mich 900 (2016) (persuaded appellate panel to apply Sentinel’s UIM policy exclusion for “any claim settled without our consent.”  Plaintiff and the underlying tortfeasor mutually accepted case evaluation without seeking Sentinel’s approval, yet the trial court refused to apply the exclusion.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Sentinel has no exposure for UIM benefits as a matter of law).

Lei v Progressive, 2016 Mich App LEXIS 306 (Mich App, 2016), lv den 500 Mich 906 (2016) (step-daughter of the son of the named insured was not a “relative” of the named insured, as defined in uninsured motorist coverage section of automobile policy, and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits).

Michigan Insurance v Frankenmuth Insurance, Channel Road, et al., 2014 WL 5364024 (Mich App, 2014), lv den 866 NW2d 427 (2015) (insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify construction company for suit that alleged faulty workmanship; the underlying complaint did not allege an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy).

Hobson v Indian Harbor Ins Co, 496 Mich 851 (2014) (persuaded the Michigan Supreme Court to remand to the Court of Appeals to consider, “as on leave granted,” the applicability of a total pollution exclusion to a personal injury claim arising out of an apartment fire).

Swistak v Home-Owners Ins Co, 2014 WL 4437726 (Mich App, 2014) (persuaded the Court of Appeals that, contrary to the finding of the trial court, plaintiff’s suit for underinsured motorist benefits was untimely under the policy terms; the appellate panel rejected plaintiff’s argument that the policy language was ambiguous).

Powell v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 2012 WL 2131123 (ED Mich, 2012) (obtained summary judgment ruling on behalf of insurer, dismissing claim for uninsured motorist benefits, based on the policy’s actual physical contact requirement).

Motor Vehicle Litigation

Dakhlallah v Progressive Marathon Ins Co, 2022 WL 4587534 (Mich App, 2022) (persuaded panel that No-Fault Act did not apply to claim for injuries suffered in an assault that occurred in a parked motor vehicle).

Cherry v Progressive Marathon Ins Co, 2022 WL 2188989 (Mich App, 2022) (successfully argued that 2019 amendment to the No-Fault Act, which provided for tolling of the statute of limitations in certain situations, did not apply retroactively, so this claim was time barred).

MemberSelect Ins Co v Flesher, 332 Mich App 216 (2020) (in this priority dispute under the No-Fault Act, the Court of Appeals agreed that our co-defendant’s policy was supported by an insurable interest and therefore not void, as that carrier was arguing, and potentially in the order of priority).

Esurance Prop & Cas Ins Co v Michigan Assigned Claims Plan, __ Mich __; __ NW2d __ (2021) (Docket No. 160592) (the Supreme Court clarified that a no-fault carrier could invoke equitable subrogation after paying no-fault benefits under a policy that it later rescinded based on fraud in the procurement).

Winfield v State Auto Prop & Cas Ins, 2021 WL 5406035 (Mich App, 2021) (persuaded panel to reverse trial court and hold that a no-fault claimant who had assigned her bills back to her healthcare providers no longer had standing to pursue then in her own suit).

Toduti v Progressive Michigan & Cherokee Ins, 2021 WL 4001802 (Mich App, 2021) (prevailed in priority dispute between commercial (Cherokee) and household (Progressive) carriers in PIP suit involving truck driver who was claimed to be an independent contractor).

Losinski v Progressive Marathon Ins Co, 2021 WL 3239468 (Mich App, 2021) (insured’s failure to disclose change of address in renewal documents, despite contractual duty to report changes, voided no-fault policy notwithstanding case law limiting insurer’s remedies to misrepresentations made in the inception of the policy; renewal was separate and distinct contract).

Advance Pain Care, PLLC v Trumbull Ins Co, 2021 WL 1941628 (Mich App, 2021) (summary disposition affirmed in this PIP case where the insurer settled with the injured person and did not have written notice of this provider’s assignment; prior settled barred provider’s suit).

Komendat v Home-Owners, __ Mich App __ (2020) (Docket No. 346990) (in this first-party no-fault action, the plaintiff’s nominal recovery following a jury trial was affirmed despite plaintiff’s multiple challenges to evidentiary rulings).

Owen v Conto, 2020 WL 91575 (Mich App, 2020), lv den 946 NW2d 270 (2020) (no-cause verdict affirmed in third-party automobile negligence action despite plaintiff’s numerous challenges to evidentiary rulings; jury determined that plaintiff was not injured in the accident).

Estate of Brogan-Genta v Genta, 2020 WL 2095998 (Mich App, 2020) (persuaded appellate panel that this third-party automobile negligence suit was filed in the wrong venue, based on where the defendant resided).

Tackoor v Esurance Prop & Cas, 2020 WL 1046720 (Mich App 2020) (in a reversal of the trial court’s finding, no-fault carrier was entitled to summary disposition where its insured gifted his vehicle to the plaintiff after the policy’s inception but before the accident, and under the policy’s terms coverage automatically terminated for any vehicle that the insured “sold, assigned, gifted or transferred”; statute that insured’s ability to cancel coverage did not apply).

Cobb v Progressive, 2019 WL 3437007 (Mich App, 2019), lv den 941 NW2d 621 (2020) (successfully defended plaintiff’s appeal from the trial court’s dismissal of his first-party no-fault action pursuant Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420 (2014); trial court found no question of fact with respect to the plaintiff’s fraud).

Malusi v Farm Bureau & Citizens, 2019 WL 573407 (Mich App, 2019), 2019 WL 573407 (in this no-fault priority dispute, I obtained the reversal and dismissal of an attorney fee award that had been entered against our client in favor of another insurer).

Traylor v Progressive Marathon Ins Co, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered December 3, 2018 (Docket No. 341375) & unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 16, 2019 (Docket No. 341375)(on an interlocutory application in a first-party no-fault suit, obtained peremptory reversal and dismissal of claim pursuant to Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420 (2014); trial court found no question of fact with respect to the plaintiff’s fraud).

Muhammad v Knightbrook Insurance, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 11, 2018 (Docket No. 341375) (on an interlocutory application in a first-party no-fault suit, obtained peremptory reversal of adverse summary disposition ruling on priority, and also succeeded in vacating sanctions award against our client).

Hughes v Progressive, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered May 9, 2018 (Docket No. 342662) & unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered April 11, 2017 (Docket No. 337565) (successfully defended two different appeals by this plaintiff from the trial court’s dismissal of his first-party no-fault action pursuant Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420 (2014); trial court found no question of fact with respect to the plaintiff’s fraud).

VHS Huron Valley Sinai Hosp v Sentinel Ins Co, 322 Mich App 707 (2018) (on remand from the Michigan Supreme Court, secured retroactive application of Covenant Med Ctr v State Farm, 500 Mich 191 (2017) in no-fault provider suit, over provider’s objection that the argument had been waived).

Salmo v Auto-Owners, et al., 2017 WL 4655371 (Mich App, 2017) (successfully defended trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s underinsured motorist claim, based on the plaintiff’s failure to insure his own involved vehicle; this – by operation of MCL 500.3113(b) and MCL 500.3135(2)(c) – was fatal to his claim where no other owner insured the vehicle).

VHS Huron Valley Sinai Hosp v Sentinel Ins Co, 501 Mich 857 (2017) (persuaded the Michigan Supreme Court to vacate the Court of Appeals’ decision favoring the provider in this first-party no-fault action where the insurer challenged the provider’s standing to bring suit).

Michigan Head & Spine v Auto-Owners, 2017 WL 3441416 (Mich App, 2017) (persuaded appellate panel that provider’s suit against no-fault carrier was untimely and that provider could not sustain claim under third-party beneficiary theory which had been based on the injured person’s release with the no-fault carrier; panel reversed trial court and found that Auto-Owners was entitled to summary disposition).

Sabados v Smith, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered June 6, 2017 (Docket No. 337562) & unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered March 15, 2017 (Docket No. 337172) (successfully defended two different appeals by this plaintiff from the trial court’s ruling that her third-party automobile negligence action was time barred; suit was filed electronically on the last day of the statute of limitations but after the court had closed).

Colvin v Trumbull Ins Co, unpublished memorandum opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 12, 2017 (Docket No. 336640) (secured reversal of trial court’s denial of Trumbull’s motion for summary disposition; panel accepted our argument that the plaintiff was the only owner of the involved vehicle and because he did not obtain insurance, he was not entitled to recover personal protection insurance benefits by operation of MCL 500.3113).

North Shore Injury Center v GEICO General Ins Co, 2017 WL 1109900 (Mich App, 2017) (secured reversal of trial court’s denial of GEICO’s motion for summary disposition; panel accepted our arguments that the plaintiff sued the wrong entity; the governing insurance policy did not provide for PIP benefits, and the entity that issued the policy, GEICO Casualty Company, was not registered with the state of Michigan under MCL 500.3163; the trial court improperly ignored the separate corporate identities of the named defendant and GEICO Casualty Company).

Oakwood Healthcare, Inc. (Koubise) v Sentinel, 2016 WL 6902033 (Mich App, 2016) (persuaded appellate panel to follow Bazzi v Sentinel, reverse the trial court, and hold that Sentinel was entitled to rescind the policy in this first-party no-fault action, based on material misrepresentations in the application for insurance, thereby voiding it ab initioand foreclosing any claims even by “innocent third-parties” and providers).

Filas v Culpert, 2015 Mich App LEXIS 489 (Mich App, 2015), lv den 498 Mich 874 (2015) (trial court correctly dismissed plaintiff’s third-party auto negligence suit after she refused to sign authorizations to release her medical records).

Brooks-Wiley v Frankenmuth, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered July 22, 2015 (Docket No. 322181) (res judicata/claim preclusion barred suit for PIP benefits, where prior suit for PIP benefits arising out of the same accident had previously been dismissed on summary disposition; court rejected plaintiff’s argument that second suit was not barred because it sought expenses incurred after the first suit’s dismissal).

Brooks-Wiley v Frankenmuth, 2015 WL 1227576 (Mich App. 2015) (first-party no-fault suit was properly dismissed based upon the plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to requests for admissions; resulting admissions provided the basis for defendant’s motion for summary disposition).

Prishtina v Auto-Owners, 2015 WL 1069405 (Mich App, 2015) (in this priority dispute between two no-fault carriers, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and held that Auto-Owners was not “the insurer,” within the meaning of MCL 500.3114(5), of a motor vehicle driver who was involved in an accident with a motorcyclist; Auto-Owners insured the motor vehicle driver’s father, with whom the driver lived, but neither the driver nor the vehicle were identified anywhere in the father’s policy).

Fuller v GEICO, 309 Mich App 495 (2015) (“temporary substitute auto” language from the liability section of GEICO’s policy did not make it responsible for PIP benefits of driver and occupant who were not GEICO’s insureds, but who had borrowed a rental vehicle from GEICO’s insured; rental vehicle was not an “insured auto” for PIP purposes because GEICO’s insured leased it for less than 30 days; rental car company’s attempt to contractually shift PIP responsibility to consumer was not permitted).

Bazzi v Sentinel, 497 Mich 886 (2014) (persuaded the Michigan Supreme Court to remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration, “as on leave granted,” whether the “innocent third party” rule applies in a first-party no-fault suit where the policy has been rescinded).

Henry Ford Health Sys v Hartford, 497 Mich 887 (2014) (persuaded the Michigan Supreme Court to remand to the Court of Appeals for consideration, “as on leave granted,” whether the “innocent third party” rule applies in a first-party no-fault suit where the policy has been rescinded).

Carr v Starr Indem & Liability Co, 2014 WL 4656645 (Mich App, 2014) (successfully defended, on appeal, the trial court’s dismissal of plaintiff’s PIP claim, based on plaintiff’s failure to timely answer requests for admissions, notwithstanding plaintiff’s arguments that there was a procedural defect with the requests and that the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to set aside the admissions).

Spencer v Geico Indem Co, 2013 WL 6690677 (Mich App, 2013) (persuaded the appellate court that, although the trial court’s findings were somewhat unclear, the trial court reached the correct result in placing Geico first in priority for the PIP claim of its named insured, where the claimant was not named on our client’s policy).

Livingston v Sullivan, 2013 WL 5576131 (Mich App, 2013) (first-party claims of injured person and medical care provider were barred by claim/issue preclusion, after a jury determined, in a third-party suit arising out of the same accident, that the claimant was not injured).

Braverman ex rel Smutzki v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 2013 WL 4436860 (Mich App, 2013), lv den 495 Mich 934 (2014) (persuaded the Court of Appeals that a question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff motorcyclist was “involved” in an accident with Auto-Owners’ insured motor vehicle; the trial court had improperly taken this question away from the jury and entered judgment against Auto-Owners).

Premises Liability

Albitus v Greektown Casino, LLC, __ Mich App __; __ NW2d __ (2021) (Docket No. 356188) (persuaded panel that casino had no actual or constructive notice of any defect in a chair, which collapsed while the plaintiff was sitting in it, so the suit was properly dismissed).

Duenas v STC, Inc, 2020 WL 5495270 (Mich App, 2020) (fast food restaurant had no notice of slippery condition that formed due to snow and/or ice being tracked into restaurant by customers; trial court’s denial of summary disposition was reversed and case was dismissed on appeal).

Zoma v MGM Grand Casino & Mich Democratic Party, 2019 WL 1371500 (Mich App, 2019) (plaintiff tripped and fell over a taped-down electrical cord during a campaign event at a Detroit casino; summary disposition affirmed because there was no evidence that defendants had actual or constructive notice of a dangerous condition).

Hollis v J.C. Penny Corp, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, entered January 5, 2018 (Docket No. 340343) (on an interlocutory application, obtained peremptory reversal of the trial court’s denial of our motion for summary disposition in this trip and fall action involving a pothole; panel was persuaded that the pothole at issue was open and obvious and that there were no questions of fact in that regard).

Morgan v Nickowski 2017 WL 5759789 (Mich App, 2017) (out of possession landlord had no liability for injuries caused by tenant’s pit bull, despite plaintiff’s effort to plead the action in terms of nuisance).

Bacon v Sunshine Products of Mid-Michigan, 2017 WL 603559 (Mich App, 2017), lv den 501 Mich 862 (2017) (through detailed briefing, thorough research, and expertise in interpreting recent precedents – such as Lowrey v LMPS & LMPJ, Inc, 500 Mich 1 (2016), which the Supreme Court released during the appeal – I established that the trial court properly granted summary disposition on the grounds that plaintiff failed to adduce evidence, in this slip and fall action, that the business owner had actual or constructive notice of the alleged slippery condition).

O’Bryan v SCS Properties, Inc, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, March 29, 2016 (Docket No. 329337) (detailed brief writing – including an extensive analysis of recent case law developments that occurred during the appeal – and a thorough understanding of appellate procedure ultimately led to the Court of Appeals unanimously deciding that the snow plaintiff slipped on was open and obvious and did not present any special aspects; subrogation claim by the plaintiff’s health insured was also dismissed on appeal).

Kosinski v Crosswinds Condominium Assoc, 2016 Mich App LEXIS 126 (Mich App, 2016) (black ice was open and obvious, and was not unavoidable; there were “indicia of a potentially hazardous condition” including “the presence of rain just hours before the fall … freezing temperatures, and … blowing snow”; plaintiff could not re-characterize claim as one for general negligence because  the complaint “was premised on a dangerous condition on the land” and therefore sounded exclusively in premises liability).

Held v North Shore Condominium Assoc, 497 Mich 1026 (2015) (persuaded the Michigan Supreme Court to remand to the Court of Appeals to consider, “as on leave granted,” whether the landscaping edging that plaintiff tripped on in broad daylight was open and obvious; trial court had denied our dispositive motion and the Court of Appeals had denied an interlocutory application).

Poole v Foodland/Atlas Market, 2014 WL 3931046 (Mich App, 2014) (patch of ice near entrance to supermarket was open and obvious and was not effectively unavoidable, where the store patron observed the ice on her way into the store, elected to enter anyway, and slipped on her way out; argument that snow may have been shoveled over the ice while plaintiff was in the store was held to be of no consequence to the special aspects analysis).

Patterson v Knollwood Village Associates Ltd. Partnership, 2014 WL 2983357 (Mich App, 2014) (snow covered curb was open and obvious and presented no special aspects, where the presence of snow and ice was readily apparent, and the plaintiff knew there was a curb in the general vicinity of her fall based upon prior visits to this apartment complex).

Borsos v Muirwood Square Associates, L.L.C., 2014 WL 2880389 (Mich App, 2014), lv den 497_Mich 1025 (2015)(salon owner had no actual or constructive notice that a patch of ice had formed near the entrance to her establishment, so plaintiff’s slip and fall claim was properly dismissed on summary disposition).

Adams v Bretton Woods Condo Ass’n, Inc, unpublished order of the Court of Appeals, January 16, 2013 (Docket No. 310066), lv den 494 Mich 869 (2013)  (detailed brief writing – including an extensive analysis of recent changes in the law which occurred during the appeal – ultimately led the Court of Appeals to unanimously decide that plaintiff’s claims, which arose out of two separate slip and fall incidents on ice and/or snow, were barred by the open and obvious doctrine; the Michigan Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s leave application).

Allen v CDM Enterprise, Inc, 2013 WL 195665 (Mich App, 2013) (bar had no liability for injuries bar patrons allegedly suffered when a ramp leading out of the bar collapsed; no evidence that the bar owner had actual or constructive notice that the ramp was dangerous).

Darweesh v King Auto Sales, Inc, 2012 WL 4039285 (Mich App, 2012) (employer had no duty to protect employees from shooting by disgruntled customer; other statutory claims brought against employer by employees were time barred).

Fletcher v Knollwood Village Associates, 2012 WL 2335945 (Mich App, 2012) (sidewalk depression in apartment complex did not render sidewalk “unfit for its intended purpose,” and plaintiff therefore did not have a viable cause of action under MCL 554.139(1)(a)).

Yacou v Oakland Mall, LLC, 2011 WL 347079 (ED Mich, 2011) (persuaded court to set aside default in this slip and fault action where the defendant had “meritorious defenses” based on lack of notice and the open and obvious doctrine).

Gibson v Anderson, 2010 WL 5094375 (Mich App, 2010) (property owner owed no duty to the plaintiff, where the plaintiff accidentally fell onto the defendant’s property – due to ice on an adjacent sidewalk the defendant did not control – and was injured when she landed on a lawn stake).

Coleman v Applebee’s of Michigan, Inc, 2010 WL 2594874 (Mich App, 2010), lv den 488 Mich 981 (2010) (crack in the pavement of restaurant’s parking lot was open and obvious, and presented no special aspect; although it was dark when the plaintiff’s fall occurred, she had walked by the crack about an hour and half earlier when it was still light out).

For the last decade, Drew W. Broaddus has devoted his practice to appellate advocacy. Mr. Broaddus has a wealth of experience handling a variety of litigation and insurance-related matters. He serves as Chair of Secrest Wardle’s Appellate Practice Group and a Chair of the Insurance Coverage Practice Group. Mr. Broaddus joined the Firm having managed all aspects of defense litigation for over seven years. Since then, he has obtained excellent results in appeals dealing with a wide range of subjects, as demonstrated by the reported decisions listed below.

Mr. Broaddus is a member of the Michigan State Bar’s Appellate Practice and Insurance and Indemnity Law Sections. From 2017-2020, he served on the State Bar’s Appellate Practice Section Council. Mr. Broaddus was named to Super Lawyers Magazine‘s list of Michigan Rising Stars from 2012 to 2017 and named to Super Lawyers Magazine‘s list of Michigan Super Lawyers from 2018 through the present in the Appellate category. He was also named to DBusiness Magazine’s list of Top Lawyers in 2017. In 2019, Mr. Broaddus was named to Grand Rapids Magazine‘s Top Lawyers list in the Insurance Law category. Additionally, Mr. Broaddus has received an AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rating by Martindale-Hubbell.

In November 2018, Mr. Broaddus began authoring the Insurance Coverage Report published in Michigan Defense Trial Counsel’s (MDTC) Michigan Defense Quarterly. The Insurance Coverage Report is a quarterly summary of recent insurance coverage appellate decisions. Through his involvement in the Insurance and Indemnity Law Section of the State Bar, Mr. Broaddus published Bad Faith: What It Is, and What It Is Not, The Journal of Insurance & Indemnity Law, April 2017, p 3.

Mr. Broaddus is an active member of the State Bar of Michigan and is licensed to practice in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Sixth Circuits, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Michigan, and the Eastern District of Michigan Bankruptcy Court.

Mr. Broaddus’ appellate successes relating to insurance coverage, since joining Secrest Wardle in 2010, include:

Insurance Coverage

Cousineau v Cousineau, 2022 WL 1711703 (Mich App, 2022) (successfully defended claim for underinsured motorist (“UIM”) benefits on the grounds that the underlying motor vehicle negligence claim failed under the sudden emergency doctrine; allegedly at-fault motorist unexpectedly encountered a patch of black ice).

J&J Castor v Home-Owners In Co, 2021 WL 3700454 (Mich App, 2021) (no actual cash value (“ACV”) coverage for build collapse where ACV was optional coverage predicated on the insured repairing or rebuilding “as soon as reasonably possible” after loss, and insured had no plan to rebuild 7 years post-loss).

Council v Allstate Vehicle & Prop Ins Co, 2021 WL 646827 (Mich App, 2021) (no coverage for fire loss under homeowner’s policy where insured grossly inflated the value of the home in his application for insurance; this material misrepresentation allowed the insurer to declare the policy void at its inception).

Gomez v Farm Bureau (On Reconsideration), 2019 WL 2016044 (Mich App, 2019), lv den 932 NW2d 634 (2019) (reversed trial court’s denial of our motion for summary disposition in uninsured motorist claim; case dismissed based on existence of other insurance covering same bodily injury, and offset language of our policy).

Growe v Home-Owners, 2017 WL 1034550 (Mich App, 2017) (holding that “owned vehicle” exclusion in Home-Owners’ UIM policy was free of ambiguity and did not render the UIM coverage illusory, reversing the trial court; claimant was allegedly injured while riding a motorcycle he owned but did not insure through Home-Owners; Court of Appeals granted our interlocutory application and later held that Home-Owners was entitled to summary disposition).

Bakri v Sentinel, 2016 Mich App LEXIS 1187 (Mich App, 2016), lv den 500 Mich 900 (2016) (persuaded appellate panel to apply Sentinel’s UIM policy exclusion for “any claim settled without our consent.”  Plaintiff and the underlying tortfeasor mutually accepted case evaluation without seeking Sentinel’s approval, yet the trial court refused to apply the exclusion.  The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Sentinel has no exposure for UIM benefits as a matter of law).

Lei v Progressive, 2016 Mich App LEXIS 306 (Mich App, 2016), lv den 500 Mich 906 (2016) (step-daughter of the son of the named insured was not a “relative” of the named insured, as defined in uninsured motorist coverage section of automobile policy, and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to uninsured motorist benefits).

Michigan Insurance v Frankenmuth Insurance, Channel Road, et al., 2014 WL 5364024 (Mich App, 2014), lv den 866 NW2d 427 (2015) (insurer had no duty to defend or indemnify construction company for suit that alleged faulty workmanship; the underlying complaint did not allege an “occurrence” within the meaning of the policy).

Hobson v Indian Harbor Ins Co, 496 Mich 851 (2014) (persuaded the Michigan Supreme Court to remand to the Court of Appeals to consider, “as on leave granted,” the applicability of a total pollution exclusion to a personal injury claim arising out of an apartment fire).

Swistak v Home-Owners Ins Co, 2014 WL 4437726 (Mich App, 2014) (persuaded the Court of Appeals that, contrary to the finding of the trial court, plaintiff’s suit for underinsured motorist benefits was untimely under the policy terms; the appellate panel rejected plaintiff’s argument that the policy language was ambiguous).

Powell v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, 2012 WL 2131123 (ED Mich, 2012) (obtained summary judgment ruling on behalf of insurer, dismissing claim for uninsured motorist benefits, based on the policy’s actual physical contact requirement).