Galloway v. Allstate

Sajid Islam obtained a partial dismissal with prejudice of Plaintiff’s claim for attendant care benefits. Plaintiff alleged that he was receiving attendant care services from four care providers. To evaluate Plaintiff’s claim, Mr. Islam obtained an Order compelling Plaintiff to produce attendant care documents and more specific responses to his client’s Interrogatories regarding each of the care providers. After Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order, Mr. Islam filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Claim for Attendant Care Benefits arguing that Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court’s Order and that no attendant care documents or information had been provided with regard to the alleged care providers. In response to the Motion to Dismiss, Plaintiff produced documents and discovery responses as to one of the care providers.

After hearing oral arguments on the Motion to Dismiss, the Court granted Plaintiff one additional week to produce documents and discovery responses relating to the remaining three alleged providers. The Court further held that if said documents and responses were not provided within one week, Plaintiff’s claim as to the remaining alleged providers would be dismissed with prejudice. After Plaintiff failed to produce documents and discovery responses, the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s attendant care claim as to the remaining three alleged providers with prejudice.

Holland v Citizens

Sarah Gordon and Tina Battle obtained a dismissal, with prejudice, on behalf of their clients, Citizens Insurance Company of America and Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, on a cause of action for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under a personal auto policy and uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under a separate umbrella policy in a wrongful death action pending in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The cause of action arose out of a motor vehicle vs. motorcycle accident in which the owner and operator of the motorcycle died when struck by the defendant driver who turned left in front of the motorcycle. The potential exposure to their clients was 1.5 million dollars.

Ms. Gordon and Ms. Battle filed a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits were excluded under the personal auto policy because coverage was not provided to an insured who was occupying a motor vehicle owned by that insured which was not insured for coverage under the personal auto policy. The term motor vehicle was not defined within the UM/UIM portion of the policy and accordingly Defense counsel argued that the dictionary or common meaning of the term applied which included a motorcycle. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the policy was ambiguous because it contained definitions of a motor vehicle which excluded motorcycles in other portions of the policy, specifically in the Accidental Death portion of the Policy and the Personal Injury Protection portion of the Policy. The Honorable Annette J. Berry agreed with the argument that the policy was not ambiguous and when given its commonly used meaning, the term motor vehicle included a motorcycle. Accordingly, UIM benefits were excluded. Ms. Gordon and Ms. Battle also successfully argued that the umbrella policy excluded any claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits unless a special endorsement was added to the policy.

Ikle v Fritts, et al

Sajid Islam obtained a favorable result arguing against a plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction in a property dispute involving lot owners in a neighborhood. With respect to a park, waterfront and lake located within the neighborhood, the plaintiff was seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from erecting docks, mooring devices, or other semi-permanent or permanent structures; maintaining picnic tables; hosting large gatherings, parties, or bonfires; or driving or parking motor vehicles, golf carts or ATVs. Sajid and Co-Counsel argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated any ownership of the park or any riparian rights with respect to the waterfront and lake. In addition, Sajid and Co-Counsel argued that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood to prevail on the merits or that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm without the entry of a preliminary injunction. It was also argued that the harm to the public interest was great because the plat dedication expressly stated that all lot owners could use the parks and canals in the neighborhood and the relief being requested by the plaintiff was contrary to that express intent. After extensive arguments, the court stated that it would not grant the plaintiff’s motion. However, in order to maintain the status quo until a final decision on the merits, the court entered an order preventing loud music or fireworks on the park area, and preventing the use of golf carts and ATVs on the park area in such a way as would disturb the peace.

Ames v Allstate Insurance Company

Sajid Islam obtained a dismissal with prejudice of Allstate Insurance Company in a lawsuit for First-Party No-Fault benefits. Sajid filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and a Supplemental Brief in Support of the Motion arguing that the plaintiff was not entitled to First-Party benefits from Allstate because she was not domiciled in the same household as her mother, the Allstate named insured, on the date of the accident at issue. Prior to the filing, Sajid obtained deposition testimony and admissions from the plaintiff and her mother indicating that the plaintiff did not reside with her mother or intend to live with her mother on the date of the accident. In addition, Sajid obtained testimony and admissions that the plaintiff did not have a bedroom or belongings at her mother’s home, and that the plaintiff was not financially dependent on her mother on the date of the accident. The plaintiff and opposing insurance company stipulated to the dismissal of Allstate with prejudice prior to the hearing on the Motion for Summary Disposition.

Adam Gordon and Samantha Boyd obtained a dismissal of Plaintiff’s negligence claims against Defendant in the Jackson County Circuit Court. Plaintiff claimed that she was injured in a public restroom where the lid of the toilet paper dispenser fell open and struck her head and alleged that Defendant, a commercial janitorial service provider, was negligent as a result. The Motion for Summary Disposition sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on the basis that Defendant’s employees had not been on site for approximately 15 hours prior to Plaintiff’s alleged injury and accordingly Defendant owed no duty to Plaintiff. Further, counsel used Plaintiff’s own deposition testimony to indicate that Plaintiff could not say how the condition was caused, how long it had been present, or who knew of the condition. Ultimately, Hon. Richard LaFlamme granted the Motion for Summary Disposition and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Defendant with prejudice.

Meghan Mair v Bristol West, et. al.

Adam Gordon and Ashley Slaght successfully obtained a summary disposition in Oakland County Circuit Court on a first-party No Fault benefits claim filed by Plaintiff. The Motion for Summary Disposition sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for first-party No Fault benefits on the basis that Plaintiff, the sole owner of the subject motor vehicle, failed to maintain the requisite security as required by MCL 500.3101. As such, pursuant to MCL 500.3113(b), Plaintiff was precluded from recovering benefits.

During oral argument on the Motion for Summary Disposition, Ashley Slaght highlighted the Michigan Court of Appeal’s opinion in Barnes v Farmers Ins Exchange, 308 Mich App (2014), and successfully distinguished those unpublished opinions cited by Plaintiff. Ultimately, the Hon. Shalina Kumar granted the Motion for Summary Disposition and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims against Bristol West with prejudice.

Massachusetts Bay Insurance Company v Frankenmuth Insurance Co., et. al.

Roger Smith and Ashley Slaght successfully obtained a voluntary dismissal of a Property Protection Insurance (PPI) Benefits suit filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed suit claiming entitlement to damages arising out of a motor vehicle accident involving a road grinder insured by Plaintiff. Ashley Slaght prepared the Motion for Summary Disposition, which sought to dismiss Plaintiff’s claims on the basis that the road grinder in question met the definition of a vehicle and benefits were properly excluded under MCL 500.3123(1)(a). Ultimately, upon reviewing the Motion for Summary Disposition, Plaintiff acquiesced and agreed to dismiss its claims against Defendant.

At the 84th Annual Oakland County Bar Association Meeting on June 4, 2018, attorney Deb Bricely received the Frances R. Avandenka Memorial Award for outstanding community service and volunteerism. In addition to being an attorney with our law firm, Deb is also a registered nurse. In 2017, as part of the National Disaster Medical Assistance Team, Deb spent two weeks providing medical assistance in field hospitals in Houston following Hurricane Harvey and several weeks in Puerto Rico working in a damaged hospital and MASH like field hospital providing medical care to those injured as a result of Hurricane Maria. We are extremely proud of the commitment to humanity demonstrated by one of our own. We congratulate her on an award well deserved.

Deborah Bricely Award

Morton v Theta Chis Fraternity

Tim Connaughton and Matt Chapin successfully defended a wrongful death case by obtaining a summary disposition from Judge Daniel J. Kelley in St. Clair County Circuit Court. We represented the President of the Zeta Tau Chapter of Theta Chi at the University of Michigan-Flint. The case arose out of a social outing at the Port Huron Float Down, in which some members and non-members of the fraternity attended. An attendee within the group, who was a minor, became intoxicated and unfortunately drowned. The Estate brought suit against our client, the national and local chapter of the fraternity, and another individual member. Plaintiff was seeking $7,000,000 in damages. Plaintiff alleged that as the President of Zeta Tau our client owed a duty of care to the decedent to not allow the furnishing of alcohol to a minor and had an obligation to uphold the fraternity’s policies and procedures regarding the furnishing of alcohol to minors.

Through discovery and extensive research we were able to establish that our client did not owe a duty of care because the Port Huron Float Down was not a sanctioned fraternity event, there was no evidence our client furnished alcohol to the decedent and there was no evidence that he allowed the furnishing of alcohol to the decedent. Furthermore, we were able to establish that our client had no involvement in the planning of the event. The judge agreed that our client did not owe a duty of care to the decedent and granted our Motion for Summary Disposition.

Deloney v Rishmawi

Peter O’Toole and Samantha Boyd obtained a no cause of action in a jury trial seeking automobile negligence damages. The trial was conducted at the Genesee County Circuit Court before Judge David J. Newblatt. This case arose out of a pedestrian versus motor vehicle accident that occurred on January 5, 2016, in Flint, Michigan. As a result of being struck by Defendant’s vehicle Plaintiff alleged to have sustained several injuries that were present since day of the accident. Plaintiff alleged that he sustained a permanent disfigurement to his lip and face due to cuts that resulted from being thrown to the ground. Additionally, Plaintiff claimed to have sustained in a closed head injury that resulted in memory loss and headaches in addition to injuries to his shoulder, knee, and lower back. During the course of the trial we were able to demonstrate that Plaintiff’s medical treatment and testimony from his own physicians failed to show that Plaintiff complained of the numerous injuries. During the cross-examination of the Plaintiff we were able to obtain testimony that showed Plaintiff had continued living his life as he was prior to the accident. A thorough examination of Plaintiff’s ability to continue in school and obtain several occupations following the accident demonstrated that Plaintiff was not entitled to damages. The trial lasted for three days and on May 23, 2018, the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action after a very short deliberation finding that Plaintiff did not sustain a serious impairment of an important body function or have a serious permanent disfigurement.