Sajid Islam and David Alcenius defended a lawsuit brought by a plaintiff medical provider that sought to recover the balance of its bills under the Michigan No-Fault Act. Sajid and David argued that the provider’s claims were predicated on the underlying claimant being eligible for benefits under the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan. Sajid and David argued that the underlying claimant failed to comply with statutory provisions of the No-Fault Act requiring cooperation, and that the claimant was not entitled to any damages as a result. Ultimately, the Court agreed with Sajid and David’s arguments, and dismissed the plaintiff’s claims.

Sajid Islam, Andrew Malec and David Alcenius defended several lawsuits filed by the plaintiff alleging various causes of action for damages, including breach of settlement, injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, fraudulent misrepresentation, accounting turnover, and attorney fees. Sajid, Andrew and David drafted motions for summary disposition in lieu of answering the complaints, in which they presented evidence that plaintiff’s claims were subject to dismissal.

Andrew argued one of the motions for summary disposition and obtained dismissal of every count of the plaintiff’s complaint. Following the court’s ruling in that case, plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the other lawsuits.

David Timmis and Veronica Prange secured summary disposition in favor of clients of the firm in a motor vehicle negligence action. The plaintiff alleged entitlement to damages stemming from our clients’ alleged negligence.  The plaintiff claimed to suffer from a serious impairment of an important body function.

David and Veronica argued that summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) based upon governmental immunity was appropriate because the plaintiff failed to plead or prove that any of the exceptions to governmental immunity applied. After the parties submitted their briefs, the court agreed with David and Veronica finding that the plaintiff’s complaint was deficient and that plaintiff did not sufficiently plead facts to overcome governmental immunity. As such, the court granted David and Veronica’s motion dismissing all claims against their clients.

Ashley Slaght prepared a motion for summary disposition arguing that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the injured party was not entitled to no-fault benefits because he was not a policyholder, a spouse of a policyholder or a resident relative of either domiciled in the same household. Ashley argued that her client was not in the order of priority under MCL 500.3114 or MCL 500.3115. After reviewing the briefs, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to present evidence creating a genuine issue of material fact. As such, the Court granted Ashley ’s motion dismissing all claims against her client.

Sajid Islam and Andrew Malec obtained a victory in the Court of Appeals affirming dismissal of Plaintiff ’s claims against their client. Sajid obtained summary disposition of the claims in the trial court, presenting documentary evidence that the claims were subject to the Pandemic Health Care Immunity Act and were appropriately barred.

On appeal, Sajid and Andrew argued that the trial court did not err in granting summary disposition and that the trial court ’s decision should be affirmed. Andrew presented oral arguments before the Court of Appeals on behalf of their client. Following oral arguments, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ’s decision granting summary disposition and dismissing the Plaintiff ’s claims.

Samantha Boyd and Kaitlin Crapo secured summary disposition in favor of clients of the firm in a motor vehicle negligence action pending in the Wayne County Circuit Court. Plaintiff alleged entitlement to damages, claiming that our clients’ alleged negligence caused injuries constituting a serious impairment of body function. Samantha and Kaitlin successfully argued that Plaintiff could not satisfy the statutory requirement because the alleged injuries, conservative course of treatment, and lack of ongoing impairment did not rise to the threshold level required to recover damages under the No-Fault Act. Samantha and Kaitlin advanced multiple grounds for summary disposition, including Plaintiff’s failure to establish an objectively manifested impairment and the absence of any meaningful change in Plaintiff’s everyday life. Ultimately, the Court agreed with Samantha and Kaitlin and granted summary disposition, dismissing Plaintiff’s claims against our clients entirely.

Executive Partners, Michelle Everett and Sajid M. Islam, presented at the Insurance Alliance of Michigan Insurance & the Law Seminar on the topic of home modification claims in the context of the No-Fault Act.

Vandeveer Garzia was honored to be a sponsor of the event, and to share our knowledge of the legal industry with the attendees and our colleagues.

They filed a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that the Plaintiff had contractually agreed to waive any claims arising from injuries sustained on the Defendant’s premises. After oral argument, the Court issued a written opinion granting Summary disposition and dismissing the Plaintiff’s Complaint.

David Houbeck and Veronica Prange obtained summary disposition of a provider PIP claim on Appeal on behalf of their client, a regional public transportation authority.  More specifically, David and Veronica filed a Motion for Summary Disposition with the Trial Court seeking dismissal of a medical facility’s PIP claim for payment of medical equipment allegedly prescribed to an individual who claimed to have been injured while a passenger on public transportation.  The individual alleged that the bus on which the individual was a passenger was involved in a motor vehicle accident.  To the contrary, video of the alleged “incident” confirmed that no motor vehicle accident occurred.  Accordingly, the Motion for Summary Disposition was based on a legal argument that no reasonable juror could possibly conclude that the medical equipment allegedly prescribed for the passenger could have possibly been reasonable or necessary for the passenger’s care, rehabilitation, or recovery for injuries caused by a motor vehicle accident, as required by the Michigan No-Fault Act.  Although the Trial Court initially denied the Motion, David and Veronica filed a successful Appeal to the Wayne County Circuit Court.  Following briefing by the parties and oral argument on Appeal, the Wayne County Circuit Court agreed with the position taken by David and Veronica on behalf of their client and entered an Order dismissing the case in its entirety.       

 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.