Lauren A. Frederick
Lauren focuses her practice in the areas general liability and insurance coverage. Lauren represents insurers, corporations, and individuals in a broad spectrum of general liability defense matters, including defending first- and third-party automobile and premises liability cases. Lauren has extensive experience handling cases from the discovery phase through trial and has prepared and successfully argued numerous motions for summary disposition. She also vast experience in handling pre-litigation issues, including fraud investigation, drafting coverage opinions, and conducting examinations under oath. Before joining Collins Einhorn Farrell, Lauren also handled asbestos and toxic tort cases.
While in law school, Lauren was the Publicity Editor of the Thomas M. Cooley Law Review, served as a member of the Mock Trial Executive Board, and participated in Moot Court. Additionally, she received Certificate of Merit awards in Research and Writing, Scholarly Writing, and Professional Responsibility.
Litigation Section, State Bar of Michigan
Insurance Section, State Bar of Michigan
Member, Defense Research Institute
Member, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel
Member, Oakland County Bar Association
Fellow, Oakland County Bar Foundation
Successfully argued motion for summary disposition of Plaintiff’s uninsured motorist claim. Plaintiff’s case was dismissed with prejudice. (Feb 2017)
Successfully obtained summary disposition in lawsuit seeking no-fault and uninsured motorist benefits (Dawan “Winner” Mate v Home-Owners Insurance Company). (Feb 2017)
Successfully obtained summary disposition in a lawsuit seeking no-fault and uninsured motorist benefits (Raven Johnson v Home-Owners Insurance Company). The judge granted the defendant-insurer’s motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for no-fault and uninsured motorist benefits, due to plaintiff’s violation of a court order and failure to participate in discovery. (Jan 2017)
Successfully argued motion for summary disposition against medical providers. (Medical Rehabilitation Physicians, Comprehensive Rx and Infiniti Labs (Reed) v Auto-Owners Insurance Company). (Jan 2017)
Successfully obtained summary disposition in a first-party no-fault case where the defendant appeared for the first day of trial against a medical provider. Before trial began, the defendant argued a motion for summary disposition based on fraud in the application for insurance and res judicata. In lieu of trial, the judge granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition and dismissed the provider’s case with prejudice. (Jan 2017)
Won motion for summary disposition in a first-party no-fault case. Judge Daphne Means-Curtis (Wayne County Circuit Court) found that there was fraud in the application for insurance, no coverage under the policy, and plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice. (Jan 2017)
Motion for summary disposition granted by Judge Daniel P. O’Brien (Oakland County Circuit Court) for an unlawful taking issue. (Nov 2016)
Successfully argued motion for summary disposition in no-fault PIP case, where judge agreed with the defendant-insurer that the alleged injured party unlawfully took the vehicle she was operating on the date of loss; therefore, she (and her providers) were excluded from collecting PIP benefits from the defendant-insurer. (Oct 2016)
Successfully drafted and argued a motion for summary disposition in a provider’s first-party no-fault action. The plaintiff sued the defendant for first-party no-fault benefits for expenses allegedly incurred for treatment rendered to the underlying claimant. The plaintiff sought benefits under a no-fault policy, which was issued to the claimant’s nonresident mother. The policy, however, insured a vehicle owned solely by a nonresident cousin. The defendant filed a motion for summary disposition in lieu of an answer. The defendant relied upon the unambiguous language contained in the No-Fault Act and the policy, and argued, primarily, that it was in not in any order of priority, and there was no coverage available to the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s main arguments were that the claimant was a constructive owner with an insurable interest, and that no-fault insurance follows the vehicle, not the person. The court disagreed with the plaintiff’s arguments, finding that there was no coverage available under the defendant’s policy and, therefore, granted the defendant’s motion for summary disposition. (2016)
Successfully drafted and argued a motion for summary disposition in a first-party no-fault subrogation action. The plaintiff sued the defendant to recoup first-party no-fault benefits paid on behalf of the plaintiff’s subrogor, as the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was in a higher order of priority for payment of PIP benefits. After the case had been pending for over a year, the judge allowed the plaintiff-insurer to add an additional defendant-insurer as a “necessary party.” Though, the additional defendant-insurer never had notice of the accident. After the defendant-insurer filed a motion for summary disposition in lieu of an answer based upon the one-year notice requirement set forth in the No-Fault Act, the judge held that the court improperly joined the additional defendant-insurer to the action, and that the plaintiff-insurer failed to give the requisite notice. The plaintiff’s case was dismissed with prejudice. (2016)
Obtained a jury verdict of no cause for action in a third-party auto negligence case. The plaintiff sued the defendant under the Owner’s Liability Statute, alleging that the defendant gave “John Doe,” the negligent driver who caused injury to the plaintiff, express or implied permission to operate her vehicle. At trial, the plaintiff was not able to meet his burden, and the defendant was able to prove that her vehicle was stolen on the date of the accident, and, therefore, the defendant could not be found liable under the Owner’s Liability Statute. (2014)
Assisted in obtaining a defense verdict after a 10-day trial involving a unique toxic tort matter. This trial is believed to be a first-of-its-kind in Michigan and involved plaintiffs’ claim that they had suffered injuries subsequent to a fire restoration contractor’s use of an ozone-generating machine to remove smoke odors from their home. The jurors found no negligence and no breach of contract, including any breach of the standards applicable to a fire restoration contractor’s use of an ozone generator. (2012)
Lauren has presented to claims adjustment groups on issues facing insurers in district courts, and the importance of maintaining communication between claims representatives and the attorney.