Star Pain Management v Encompass

Sajid Islam and Kristine Rizzo obtained partial summary disposition in district court as it relates to a claim brought against their client for No-Fault benefits pertaining to the dispensing of durable medical equipment. Sajid drafted a Motion for Partial Summary Disposition arguing that Plaintiff was not entitled to No-Fault benefits for durable medical equipment that it dispensed to a patient as the dispensing of durable medical equipment was not lawfully rendered under the No-Fault Act. Specifically, after conducting discovery, Sajid argued that Plaintiff was not licensed to dispense durable medical equipment. Kristine appeared for oral arguments on the Motion, and successfully persuaded the Judge that summary disposition as to the claims involving durable medical equipment was appropriate.

Ashley Slaght obtained voluntary dismissal of Plaintiff’s first-party No-Fault benefits claim following filing a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing the policy was rescinded for fraudulent statements made by the Plaintiff/insured. Ashley Slaght was also successful in obtaining the voluntary dismissal of an intervening plaintiff service provider as well as an additional service provider that wished to intervene.

Faller v. Yamato Corporation and Kroger Co. of Michigan

Tim Connaughton and Armin Halilovic successfully defended a claim by plaintiff, Michelle Faller, filed in the Macomb County Circuit Court before Judge Jennifer Faunce. The case arose out of an incident that occurred on March 12, 2017 at a Kroger grocery store located in Roseville, Michigan. As the plaintiff pushed her grocery cart through the produce aisle of the store, her right hand came into contact with the base of a produce scale. Plaintiff alleged that she cut her right hand on the base of the scale. Plaintiff asserted a premises liability claim against Kroger and a product liability claim against our client, the manufacturer of the scale, Yamato Corporation. In our Motion for Summary Disposition, we argued that plaintiff’s claims against Yamato Corporation should be dismissed because (1) the scale was not negligently designed; (2) the scale was not unreasonably dangerous and therefore Yamato Corporation did not have a duty to warn; (3) the scale was open and obvious and therefore Yamato Corporation did not have a duty to warn; and (4) Yamato Corporation did not breach any implied or express warranties. On July 8, 2019, Judge Faunce granted our motion on the open and obvious issue and dismissed the case without deciding any of the other issues.

Lucas v Gillin

Sarah Gordon, Brian Boehne, and Dena Auraha obtained summary disposition, with prejudice, on behalf of their client, a Defendant in an automobile negligence action where Plaintiff claimed severe injuries when struck by Defendant’s car while riding a bicycle. Discovery revealed that Plaintiff was intoxicated and lacked independent recollection of the accident. An independent witness and the responding police officer corroborated Defendant’s recollection that he had a green light and had no opportunity to stop before striking the bicyclist who proceeded through a red light. A toxicologist was retained, who confirmed that Plaintiff’s ability to operate his bicycle was impaired at the time of the accident. The Motion for Summary Disposition argued that Defendant was entitled to an absolute defense as all evidence confirmed Defendant had the right-of-way and Plaintiff was presumed to be impaired. Dena Auraha prepared the motion and briefs and Brian Boehne argued the motion before the Honorable Annette Berry in the Wayne County Circuit Court. Judge Berry agreed that Plaintiff could not support his claim, Defendant had set forth an absolute defense and granted summary disposition in favor of Defendant.

Gray v GCA Services Group, Inc.

Tina Battle, Adam Gordon, and Peter O’Toole obtained summary disposition, with prejudice, on behalf of their client in a premises liability action in which the minor Plaintiff, through minor Plaintiff’s counsel and mother, allegedly sustained serious and permanent injuries due to an allegedly dangerous condition of a doorway at the elementary school he attended. The firm’s client provided custodial services at the elementary school. The Motion for Summary Disposition argued that GCA Services Group did not owe the Plaintiff a duty without regard to the obligations in the contract sufficient to sustain Plaintiff’s negligence claim against GCA. Further, the motion argued that GCA exercised due care in its undertakings and did not breach any common law duties to Plaintiff.

Tina Battle prepared the motion and briefs; Peter O’Toole argued the motion before the Honorable Susan Hubbard in the Wayne County Circuit Court; and Adam Gordon provided strategy, advice, and guidance. Judge Hubbard agreed that Plaintiff failed to sufficiently support his claim and granted summary disposition in favor of GCA Services Group. In his Case Evaluation Summary, Plaintiff claimed damages in excess of $10,000,000.

Lucas and Natasha Coon, individually, and as Next Friend of Jacoby Coon, a minor v David Ryan and Pamela Ryan and Dakryn Properties LLC

Matt Chapin successfully defended a negligence, nuisance, and silent fraud claim by obtaining a summary disposition on all three counts from Judge Matthew Stewart in Shiawassee County Circuit Court. Our clients leased a home to Plaintiffs, and Plaintiffs’ alleged that their minor child ingested lead from the paint in the home, which caused the child to suffer from various neurological and cognitive disorders. Plaintiffs were seeking millions of dollars in damages. Throughout discovery, we were able to establish that our clients complied with all requirements pursuant to The Residential Lead-Based Paint Hazard Reduction Act of 1992. We were also able to establish that our client had no knowledge or notice of lead being in the home, and Plaintiffs failed to show that there was a defective condition in the home. We argued that Plaintiffs did not present any evidence to establish that our clients’ conduct fell below the applicable standard of care. The court agreed with our arguments and dismissed Plaintiffs’ case in its entirety.

Ashley Slaght obtained partial summary dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for entitlement to first-party No-Fault benefits, significantly limiting Plaintiff’s recovery, which ultimately lead to successful resolution of Plaintiff’s claims.

On Saturday, February 23, a group of Vandeveer Garzia employees and their families and friends once again volunteered at Gleaners Community Food Bank. The group sorted over 4,700 pounds of donated food that will help feed over 3,800 people in the community. The group also donated money to purchase 92 gallons of milk. Vandeveer Garzia thanks these employees and their families and friends for giving up a Saturday morning to make a difference in helping those in need.

Vandeveer Garzia employees and their families and friends volunteered at Gleaners Community Food Bank

Shield Global Partners v Allstate Insurance Company, et al.

Donald Brownell and Sajid Islam successfully obtained summary disposition of Plaintiff’s claims against their client, Allstate Insurance Company, in a lawsuit in which Plaintiff sought a declaration from the circuit court that it was entitled to diminished value damages under the mini-tort provision of the Michigan No-Fault Act and that insurance companies were obligated to pay diminished value damages. Plaintiff sued Allstate Insurance Company and several other insurance companies alleging that it had been assigned the right from GM Financial to pursue diminished value damages for vehicles that GM had previously leased and which were involved in accidents that diminished their value despite proper repairs. Plaintiff argued that it could seek such damages directly from the insurance companies. Sajid drafted a Joint Motion for Summary Disposition on behalf of the Defendant insurance companies, with input from Counsel for the other Defendant insurance companies, and Donald Brownell argued the Joint Motion. Specifically, it was argued that Plaintiff failed to present a case of actual controversy and that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to declare the rights of the parties. Further, Defendants argued that the necessary parties, the actual tortfeasors, were not parties to the matter, Plaintiff’s claim was entirely hypothetical in nature, and that mini-tort actions must be brought in the district court, as the amount in controversy could never exceed $25,000.00. Additionally, it was argued that a mini-tort claim could never be brought directly against an insurance company. Thus, Defendants argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court agreed with Defendants and entered an order dismissing Plaintiff’s claims without prejudice, noting that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction to enter a declaration in such an abstract case and where the action involved the mini-tort statute, which caps damages below the circuit court’s jurisdictional threshold.

Mary Lambert v Handelsman, Inc. d/b/a Better Health Market

Samantha Boyd handled this case and before she went on maternity leave she prepared a Motion for Summary Disposition, which was argued by Maxwell Sanders in the Macomb County Circuit Court before Judge Joseph Toia. Defendant’s Motion argued that Plaintiff’s premises liability claim regarding a slip and fall accident in a grocery store was barred by the open and obvious doctrine. Specifically, Defendant argued that the puddle Plaintiff slipped in could have been observed upon casual inspection. To prove this point, Defendant relied upon Plaintiff’s testimony that indicated after she fell, the puddle she allegedly slipped in had left her wet from her face and hair to the entirety of the front of her body. Defendant also relied upon the testimony of the store manager who stated that he observed the puddle upon coming to Plaintiff’s aid. Further, Defendant argued that summary disposition was appropriate because it did not have actual or constructive knowledge of the puddle at the time of the incident. To prove that Defendant did not know, and had no reason to know, that there was a puddle in this location, the depositions of three separate store employees were taken. Defendant relied on this testimony as well as Plaintiff’s own testimony to craft this defense. Ultimately, Judge Toia was persuaded by Defendant’s arguments and granted its Motion for Summary Disposition, holding that Plaintiff had failed to present evidence to establish that Defendant breached its duty.