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.

Gomez v Allstate Insurance Company, et al.

Sajid Islam obtained a reversal of the trial court’s ruling on a Motion for Summary Disposition and Motion for Reconsideration in an action filed against his client, Allstate Insurance Company. Specifically, the plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition alleged that the plaintiff, a motorcyclist, was entitled to first-party no-fault benefits and uninsured motorist benefits from Allstate as there was no genuine issue of material fact that a motor vehicle was involved in the accident. The trial court granted plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition and denied Allstate’s Motion for Reconsideration on the issues.

Sajid prepared an Application for Leave to Appeal the trial court’s decision, arguing that the trial court erred when it held that plaintiff was entitled to uninsured motorist benefits in light of a clear and unambiguous exclusion for such coverage when the injury arises out of the use of a motorcycle. In addition, he argued that there was sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact as to the involvement of a motor vehicle. On November 27, 2018, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision stating that the defendant had presented sufficient evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact regarding the involvement of a motor vehicle in the accident. Further, the Court found that the clear and unambiguous language of the policy excluded the recovery of uninsured motorist benefits.

Attorney Deb Bricely was again deployed as part of the National Disaster Medical Assistance Team to Chico, California in response to the Camp fire. Her Disaster Medical Assistance Team was divided into three health medical task forces and sent to various evacuee shelter locations to provide medical care at the Red Cross shelters. In addition to being an attorney, Deb is also a registered nurse. They were stationed at the base camp to assist responders set up at the Chico airport about forty miles airway. On Thanksgiving, Deb shared a warm meal with other military personnel.

Deborah Bricely Deployed as part of the National Disaster Medical Assistance Team

Saar v. Johns

April Malak was granted summary disposition in Oakland County Circuit Court on Plaintiff’s claim for damages stemming from an automobile accident. Defendant alleged the accident was minor in nature, occurring while both parties were in line for gas at a gas station. Plaintiff alleged injuries including those to his neck and shoulder, and also alleged dizziness and lack of concentration, that in turn affected his ability to lead his normal life. During the course of discovery, Defendant obtained medical records and conducted surveillance on Plaintiff. Defendant argued the medical records failed to support an objective injury to the extent claimed by Plaintiff. Further, Defendant obtained surveillance of Plaintiff, which showed Plaintiff participating in hours-long bike rides, and doing outdoor chores, in addition to other activities. In turn, Defendant argued Plaintiff has failed to satisfy the “serious impairment” threshold. The Court agreed and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims.

Estate of Dani Homrich v Selective Insurance Company et al

Roger Smith and Beth Andrews succeeded in obtaining summary disposition in the Oakland County Circuit Court on claims by the estate of a deceased pedestrian who was struck and killed while crossing a darkened street on a moonless morning more than one hour before dawn. Mrs. Homrich was an exceptionally small 68 year old adult who rose very early each morning for her daily walk. Except for her green shoes and red hat, she was otherwise dressed in very dark, non‑reflective clothing (including black gloves) and carried no flashlight or other item which would have rendered her visible to drivers. Roger represented a defendant driver who was on his way to work. A slight rise in the road and large trash bins placed at the curb apparently obscured the vision of both driver and pedestrian and prevented them from seeing each other until the last moment. The driver testified that he was unable to see her until she suddenly darted out from his right side to cross the road and was struck by his vehicle. Another driver traveling behind him also failed to see her as she lay on the road, and struck her again in what was probably the fatal blow. Plaintiff responded to our motion by presenting an extensive affidavit by expert Daniel Lee detailing the many ways that, in his opinion, our client driver had been negligent in the operation of his vehicle, however eyewitnesses as well as the Oakland County Sheriff deputy who investigated the accident all opined that there was no way that the first driver had time to avoid the collision. Oakland County Circuit Judge Phyllis McMillen granted Roger and Beth’s motion for summary disposition, holding as a matter of law that the pedestrian plaintiff had been more than 50% at fault in causing this accident and her injuries.

Perkins v Encompass Indemnity Company

Guy Silvasi obtained summary disposition in Montcalm County Circuit Court in a uninsured/underinsured motorist claim brought against Encompass Indemnity Company. The Motion was argued before Judge Suzanne Hoseth Creeger by Guy Silvasi. Plaintiff claimed he sustained a serious impairment of body function following an accident in which a truck carrying a horse trailer struck Plaintiff’s motor vehicle at a high rate of speed. Plaintiff alleged injuries primarily to his neck and back. Defendants contested that Plaintiff did not sustain a serious impairment of body function, and that Plaintiff failed to present any objective evidence of injury as required under the first prong of McCormick v Carrier. The Court agreed, and granted our Motion for Summary Disposition dismissing the uninsured and underinsured motorists claims against Encompass with prejudice.

Carol Masse, Personal Representative of the Estate of Deborah Klapp v Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc.

Lead trial attorney Adam Gordon along with Peter O’Toole and Ashley Slaght prevailed in a case by obtaining a no cause of action from a Genesee County jury after a lengthy trial. The matter arose out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on December 21, 2011, in which Mark Alan Bono, while operating a 2012 Chevrolet Malibu, owned by Defendant Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., struck a motor vehicle that was parked in the roadway and recently operated by Deborah Klapp. Unfortunately, as a result of this collision, Deborah Klapp passed away. Plaintiff Carol Masse, as personal representative, sought damages as to Defendant Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., pursuant to the Michigan Civil Liability Act (MCL 257.401) as the owner of the 2012 Chevrolet Malibu.

The case had numerous legal issues, factual issues and disputes relating to all aspects of the claim. The trial began on September 5, 2018, with the Estate requesting $15 million in damages. In closing argument, it was successfully argued that Mark Alan Bono, and by extension Defendant Patsy Lou Chevrolet, Inc., was not negligent on the date of loss. This result was achieved despite the fact that Mark Alan Bono was dismissed from the case after entering into a negotiated resolution with the decedent’s Estate prior to trial.

Tina Battle and Brian Boehne obtained summary disposition, with prejudice, in the Wayne County Circuit Court, on Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and gross negligence for personal injuries allegedly sustained during a personal training session at Defendants’ fitness facility. The Motion for Summary Disposition argued that Plaintiff’s claims for negligence were barred by a Release of Liability signed by Plaintiff. The Court found that the language of the Release of Liability was prominently displayed and determined that the intention of Defendants to disclaim liability was clearly expressed. Further, the Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff had signed the Release of Liability and that it was fairly and knowingly made. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claims for gross negligence, the Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action for gross negligence in that Defendants did not engage in conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted. Plaintiff alleged a claim for damages in excess of $300,000.

Tony Kostello has had a grant of summary judgment by the United States District Court affirmed in the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals. The minor Plaintiff was injured when his mother, who was carrying him, tripped and fell in the parking lot of the defendant’s health club. Judge David Lawson of the United States District Court – E.D. of Michigan granted summary judgment to the defendant on open and obvious grounds, holding that the mother could have seen and avoided the alleged defect in the defendant’s parking lot. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that the 3 year old child that was injured should not be subjected to the application of the open and obvious doctrine as he was too young to have perceived and avoided the alleged defect. The issue of whether a child could be subject to the open and obvious doctrine under these circumstances had come up in Michigan law on only one prior (albeit somewhat different) situation. That unpublished case involved a child who was injured while being pushed in a shopping cart by his father. The 6th Circuit agreed that the relevant inquiry was whether or not the mother was able to perceive and avoid the danger and therefore affirmed Judge Lawson’s granting of summary judgment.