Peter Tomasek, one of Collins Einhorn Farrell PC’s appellate attorneys, authored an amicus brief on the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel’s behalf in support of the defendant-insurer’s brief on appeal in Yu v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Mich. This case arose out of significant water damage to a home in Portage, Michigan. To read further details, click on the headline.
Appellate attorney Peter J. Tomasek recently prevailed on behalf of his client, a parking-garage operator and owner, who was the defendant in the case. The premises-liability lawsuit arose out of a slip-and-fall in a parking garage’s icy stairwell. In Sundrla v Republic Parking Systems, Inc, an unpublished opinion issued April 24, 2018, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision to grant summary disposition in the defendant’s favor. The Court held that the stairs’ dangerousness was open and obvious despite the fact that the ice was invisible and the stairwell wasn’t open to the winter elements.
Collins Einhorn Farrell PC is pleased to announce that attorney Tanya M. Murray recently joined the firm’s Insurance Coverage practice group. Ms. Murray represents and counsels clients by providing coverage opinions and drafting corresponding coverage position letters encompassing a wide variety of claims under commercial general liability, homeowners, umbrella and professional liability insurance policies. She also litigates coverage disputes arising from claims for bodily injury, property damage, personal and advertising injury, construction defects and toxic torts among others. To read more on Ms. Murray, click on the headline.
Collins Einhorn Farrell attorneys Theresa M. Asoklis, Michael J. Cook, and Eric M. Kociba obtained dismissal of a class-action complaint claiming that a law firm violated federal and state law. The federal district court agreed that the plaintiffs’ claims, which were based on the interest rate in state-court judgments, were “functionally appeals of state court decisions.” Since federal courts cannot act as an appellate court for state-court judgments, the court lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims. To read the full outcome, click on the headline.
Attorneys Kyle M. Dysarz and Deborah A. Lujan recently obtained summary disposition in favor of a well-established Ann Arbor hotel and restaurant based upon its lack of notice in a unique premises-liability case. For full details, click on the headline.
Defense-litigation attorney Matthew S. LaBeau of Collins Einhorn Farrell PC recently spoke on Using the Claims File to Prove and Disprove Damages at Trial at the fifth annual ICLE No-Fault Summit. He was joined by plaintiff attorney Adrienne D. Logeman of Logeman Iafrate & Logeman PC. Matt provided an in-depth perspective on how to effectively document the claim file, avoid claims for interest and attorney fees, and bolster the defense through strategic use of the claim file in discovery and at trial.
For a full outline of Matt’s presentation, email him at Matthew.LaBeau@ceflawyers.com.
On May 8, 2018, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued a published opinion addressing two legal issues that have been hotly contested in the wake of last year’s Covenant v State Farm decision, which held that healthcare providers do not have a statutory basis to sue no-fault insurers for personal protection insurance (“PIP”) benefits under the Michigan No-Fault Act. To read further details, click on the headline.
Attorneys MaryRachel Dysarz and Lauren Frederick obtained summary disposition of a $641,361.09 claim for no-fault benefits, based on the statutory “intentional act” defense of MCL 500.3105(4). The Court found that the plaintiff’s intent to kill himself was so evident that not even his blood-alcohol level or testimony from his psychiatry expert regarding his impaired cognitive functioning could defeat summary disposition. For full details, click the headline.
Attorneys Colleen H. Burke and Peter J. Tomasek recently obtained summary disposition in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of their fast-food franchisor client. The plaintiff alleged that Burke and Tomasek’s client was liable for negligent hiring and inflicting emotional distress because of an altercation with the client’s employee. Burke and Tomasek argued that their client did not owe plaintiff an actionable duty and that the employee’s conduct did not meet the “extreme and outrageous” standard for purposes of the emotional-distress claim. The Court agreed and dismissed plaintiff’s claims before the close of discovery.
Attorneys Kari L. Melkonian and Lindsey A. Peck won summary disposition in favor of a snow-removal company in a slip-and-fall case. The Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims against the defendant, holding that the defendant didn’t owe the plaintiff a separate duty. The Court also granted the snow-removal contractor’s motion for summary disposition on a third-party complaint filed against its subcontractor. The Court found that, under the terms of the snow-removal subcontract, the subcontractor owed the contractor and property owner both defense and indemnification.