Vandeveer Garzia is pleased to announce and congratulates the following Associate Attorneys who have been elevated to Partner: Brian V. Boehne, Matthew J. Chapin, Armin Halilovic, David Q. Houbeck, April N. Malak, Maxwell P. Sanders and Ashley A. Slaght.

In the spirit of giving, the attorneys and staff of Vandeveer Garzia celebrated the 2019 holiday season by electing to adopt two local families in need. The outpouring of support provided the families with essential household items as well as gifts to allow the children to experience the spirit of Christmas. Together with their families, attorneys Deborah Bricely, James Hicks, Massimo Badalamenti, Michelle Everett, Kristine Rizzo and Anthony Kostello delivered the gifts.

Jarfar v Al-Hanoka

Guy Silvasi recently obtained a dismissal with prejudice of a third party no-fault lawsuit filed in the Macomb County Circuit Court. The plaintiffs in the case, a husband and wife, claimed that they were both injured when their minivan collided with another motor vehicle operated by our client, the defendant. However, our client insisted that the husband was not in the minivan at the time of the collision, and that, in fact, the husband arrived at the accident scene several minutes later in a different motor vehicle.

Extensive discovery uncovered a mountain of evidence that rebutted the plaintiffs’ assertion that they were both in the minivan at the time of the accident. Dashcam footage from the investigating officer’s squad car showed three motor vehicles parked next to each other: the minivan, our client’s motor vehicle, and a motor vehicle matching the description of the husband’s motor vehicle. Furthermore, both plaintiffs lived less than one mile from the accident scene. Cellular phone records demonstrated that the wife placed several calls to her husband around the time of the accident. The phone records also revealed that the husband placed a call to our client shortly thereafter. Although the plaintiffs attempted to claim that the husband left his cell phone at home, this claim was rebutted by the dashcam footage that clearly showed the husband reaching into his pocket for his cell phone and placing a call to our client from the accident scene.

This matter was extensively briefed and argued before Judge Michael Servitto, who examined the evidence, and determined that the plaintiffs’ behavior amounted to fraud. Judge Servitto voided the plaintiffs’ policy of insurance, thereby barring the plaintiffs’ third party no-fault claims as a matter of law.

Gjok Pepaj v Allstate Insurance Company

Guy Silvasi successfully briefed and argued a Motion for Summary Disposition in a second generation no-fault lawsuit brought against Allstate Insurance Company. The Motion was argued before Judge Peter Maceroni in the Macomb County Circuit Court. Plaintiff claimed that he continued to incur medical expenses and required attendant care in connection with a 2014 motor vehicle accident. However, plaintiff’s attendant care claim was rebuffed by surveillance that was performed over the course of several days. Additionally, the Motion argued that plaintiff failed to provide reasonable proof to support his claims for attendant care and medical expenses within the meaning of the No-Fault Act. The Court agreed, and dismissed plaintiff’s entire no-fault claim against Allstate with prejudice.

Ashley Slaght was successful in obtaining the dismissal of Plaintiff service provider’s claims following the sole member and manager’s failure to appear for an evidentiary hearing. Plaintiff brought suit for benefits in excess of $100k.

Congratulations to Roger A. Smith (Civil Litigation – Defense), William L. Kiriazis (Construction Litigation) and David B. Timmis (Business Litigation) for their selection as 2019 Michigan Super Lawyers. Super Lawyers are selected by an independent research and peer evaluation process sponsored by Super Lawyers Magazine. Only 5% of attorneys in Michigan are selected to Super Lawyers. Congratulations to Brian Boehne who has been selected as a 2019 Michigan Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine. This is an exclusive list, recognizing no more than 2.5 percent of attorneys in Michigan.

Kirk, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Company

Sajid Islam obtained summary disposition of Plaintiffs’ claims against his client, Allstate Insurance Company, in a lawsuit filed by Plaintiffs in which they alleged that a portion of their home collapsed suddenly and without warning. Sajid drafted a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the collapse that occurred was caused by several years of long-term water exposure, rust, corrosion, wear and tear, deterioration and failure to maintain. Additionally, Sajid argued that Plaintiffs had made a claim with a separate insurance carrier several years prior to the instant claim for similar damage to their property, further demonstrating the long-term nature of the damage. Ultimately, the Court dispensed with oral arguments and granted Sajid’s Motion finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the collapse did not occur suddenly and without warning.

American Anesthesia Associates, LLC v Farmers Insurance Exchange

Brian Boehne obtained summary disposition of Plaintiff’s claims against his client, Farmers Insurance Exchange, in a lawsuit filed by Plaintiff in which it alleged that the recently amended, rather than prior one-year back rule of MCL 500.3145 applied. Brian drafted a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the No-fault benefits were incurred prior to one year before the filing of Plaintiff’s action, and that statutes of limitation are prospective only, unless otherwise indicated by the legislature. Ultimately, in issuing an opinion after oral arguments, the Court agreed that the new tolling provision of MCL 500.3145 would not apply to expenses incurred before June 11, 2019 and granted Brian’s Motion finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the statute of limitations barred plaintiff’s claim.

Adam Gordon, Peter O’Toole and Ashley Slaght obtained a no-cause jury verdict in a Macomb County Circuit Court matter wherein Plaintiff brought suit for recovery of Uninsured as well as Underinsured Motorist Benefits. The trial lasted approximately three weeks. Counsel for Defendant presented proofs in support of their argument that Plaintiff was precluded from recovering UM/UIM benefits on the basis that Plaintiff had committed fraud. Following the no-cause jury verdict, Defendant sought to recover costs and attorneys fee. The parties thereafter reached a resolution wherein Plaintiff agreed to pay Defendant $107,717.73.

Merit Network, Inc. v AMcomm Telecommunications, Inc.

David Timmis and David Houbeck obtained summary disposition with prejudice on behalf of their client, a successful and distinguished telecommunications company, in a lawsuit in which the Plaintiff alleged $12 million dollars in damages related to the construction of thousands of miles of fiber-optic cable across northern Michigan. The Plaintiff alleged that the outdoor construction of aerial and underground fiber optic cable performed by the Defendant was defective.

Mr. Timmis and Mr. Houbeck successfully argued that the Defendant’s installation of the fiber optic network was exemplary, as evidenced by the fact that the Plaintiff had inspected, approved and paid for the work. The Plaintiff also monitored the telecommunications network for years but did not set forth any criticisms of the Defendant’s workmanship.

Mr. Timmis and Mr. Houbeck also successfully argued that the parties’ contract included a limitation of action provision which prohibited the Plaintiff from alleging defective workmanship approximately five years after construction, including after the fiber optic cable and equipment had been subjected to the extreme weather conditions of Northern Michigan for more than five years. Further, since it is common in the telecommunications industry for other utility companies to move and rearrange existing equipment on utility poles, a limitation of action provision is an industry standard. Ultimately, the Court was persuaded by the arguments set forth on behalf of the Defendant and dismissed the Plaintiff’s claims in their entirety.