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.

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.