This matter involved complex issues regarding engineering design standards, the Michigan Building Code,  choice of law issues, and aspects of international law. Tim and Salman were successful in obtaining Summary Judgment in favor of their clients, resulting in the Plaintiff’s case being dismissed in its entirety.

David Houbeck and Veronica Prange successfully obtained a complete dismissal of a PIP claim filed by a non-emergency medical transportation company against their client, a regional public transportation authority.  David and Veronica filed a Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiff provider’s claim for payment of non-emergency medical transportation services allegedly provided to an individual who claimed to have been injured while boarding public transportation.  The Motion to Dismiss was based on the Plaintiff provider’s failure to timely pay mandatory transfer fees in accordance with the Michigan Court Rules.  Following briefing by the parties and oral argument, the Court agreed with the position taken by David and Veronica on behalf of their client.  Accordingly, the Court entered an Order dismissing the case in its entirety.    

Stephanie Tzafaroglou obtained summary disposition and dismissal of a claim in its entirely in case involving proper application of MCL 500.3157. Plaintiff, a medical provider, brought a claim for No-Fault benefits against the firm’s client, a No-Fault insurer, for services provided to a patient of the plaintiff following an automobile accident which occurred in 2020.  As the patient’s automobile accident occurred in 2020, Ms. Tzafaroglou argued that payment to the provider was governed by MCL 500.3157 pursuant to the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in Andary v USAA and the No-Fault reform passed by the Michigan Legislature in 2019. Further, Ms. Tzafaroglou argued that the firm’s client properly issued payment to the medical provider consistent with MCL 500.3157. The court was persuaded by these arguments and dismissed plaintiff’s claims against the firm client’s with prejudice.

In this case, the Plaintiff claimed significant injuries resulting from a fall in a parking lot allegedly caused by an unknown substance. After discovery and depositions, Scott and Tim filed a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that their client lacked the required “possession and control”, i.e., it was not the entity in the best position to prevent Plaintiff’s harm. They also argued that the client did not have “actual or constructive” knowledge of the alleged dangerous condition when there was no evidence to show the condition existed for a sufficient length of time for the client to discover it.

After oral argument, the Trial Court agreed and granted the Motion for Summary Disposition and dismissed Plaintiff’s Complaint.

David Houbeck and Veronica Prange obtained partial summary disposition of a medical facility’s claim for payment of PIP benefits on behalf of a regional public transportation authority client of the firm.  In the lawsuit, a medical facility sought payment for pain management services allegedly provided to an individual who claimed to have been injured while a passenger on public transportation.  David and Veronica filed a Motion for Partial Summary Disposition requesting that the Court limit medical facility’s claims in accordance with the “fee schedule” provisions of MCL 500.3157, as a matter of law.  The Court agreed with their position and entered an Order significantly limiting the Plaintiff provider’s claim and drastically decreasing the amount in controversy in the lawsuit.    

Stephanie Tzafaroglou successfully obtained summary disposition of all claims brought against a client of the firm in a catastrophic claim in which damages exceed $1 million. The plaintiff in this case sustained significant injuries in an automobile accident. Plaintiff, along with four Intervening Plaintiffs, brought a claim for No-Fault benefits against the firm’s client, a No-Fault insurer. The plaintiffs also sued two additional insurers for No-Fault benefits arising out of the same accident. The firm’s client issued an automobile policy of insurance to the plaintiff’s father. Ms. Tzafaroglou argued that the firm’s client was not the insurer responsible for payment of plaintiff’s No-Fault benefits as Plaintiff was not domiciled with her father at the time of the accident. As a result, the firm’s client was not in the order of priority pursuant to MCL 500.3114(1). Despite significant opposition from all four plaintiffs and the two other insurance defendants, the court agreed with Ms. Tzafaroglou’s arguments and granted summary disposition in favor of the firm’s client. As a result, all claims from all four plaintiffs were dismissed with prejudice.

Sajid Islam successfully obtained summary disposition of a 12-count complaint against a client of the firm. The plaintiff alleged various legal theories, including first-party no-fault benefits, negligent construction, nuisance, unconscionability, conversion, breach of contract and collision damages. After several months of discovery, Sajid filed a motion for summary disposition asserting that the plaintiffs did not have standing to pursue certain claims. He also argued that the plaintiffs could not prove that his client owned, constructed, installed or removed the property that the plaintiffs alleged gave rise to a claim of negligent construction, nuisance and conversion. After oral arguments, the judge agreed and dismissed all 12 counts of the complaint.

Rick Patterson and Sajid Islam prevailed in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals after Sajid Islam obtained summary judgment of a plaintiff’s claim for $1,000,000 in underinsured motorist benefits. Rick and Sajid argued that the district court judge properly granted summary judgment of plaintiff’s claims as plaintiff had made material misrepresentations and committed fraud in connection with his claim for underinsured motorist benefits. After oral arguments in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Court issued an Opinion affirming the district court’s holding that the plaintiff made material misrepresentations and committed fraud in connection with his claim, and that underinsured motorist coverage was therefore excluded under the terms of the policy.