Click on any headline for full story…

Collins Einhorn Farrell PC announced today that 15 of its attorneys have been named to the 2018 Michigan Super Lawyers list, and an additional 12 attorneys were named to the 2018 Michigan Rising Stars list. In addition, Michael Sullivan and Melissa Graves received additional accolades. Michael Sullivan was listed in the Top 100: 2018 Michigan Super Lawyers list and the Top 50: 2018 Michigan Business Super Lawyers list, and Melissa Graves was named to the Top 50: 2018 Women Michigan Super Lawyers list and the Top 25: 2018 Women Business Super Lawyers list. For full details and a list of all recipients, click on the headline.

An article titled “Coming Soon to a Drinking Water Source Near You: EPA Regulation of Perchlorate” by Rick Braun was recently published in the DRI Toxic Tort and Environmental Newsletter. With the EPA scheduled to set a Maximum Containment Level in the fall of 2018, the article is a timely look at the Safe Drinking Water Act and EPA’s regulatory history of perchlorate, also known as the “rocket fuel chemical.”

Collins Einhorn attorneys Kevin P. Moloughney and Matthew J. Zmijewski successfully defended a complicated wrongful death lawsuit in Oakland County Circuit Court. To read further details, click on the headline.

Collins Einhorn Farrell PC, a leading defense litigation firm based in Southfield, Michigan, is pleased to announce that it has been honored as a 2018 Cool Places to Work in Michigan by Crain’s Detroit Business. For full details, click on the headline.

Collins Einhorn Farrell PC is pleased to announce that 16 of its attorneys have been named to the 2019 edition of Best Lawyers in America©. Additionally, Deborah Lujan has been named the Best Lawyers 2019 Litigation – Insurance “Lawyer of the Year” in Michigan due to her exemplary work in defense litigation. For the full list of attorneys selected for this prestigious award, click on the headline.

Attorney Matthew S. LaBeau obtained summary disposition on behalf of a spindle manufacturing company in a product liability case. To read the full outcome of the case, click on the headline.

Attorneys Brian D. Einhorn and Karen R. Geibel obtained summary disposition for their client in a legal-malpractice case. Brian and Karen successfully argued that the plaintiff’s claims were invalid because their client’s statements—the basis for the plaintiff’s malicious-prosecution claim—were made in a judicial proceeding and therefore absolutely privileged. They also argued that the plaintiff couldn’t pursue a legal-malpractice claim at all because there was no attorney-client relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. The Wayne County Circuit Court agreed, dismissing all claims against Brian and Karen’s client.

Attorney Matthew S. LaBeau has published an article in the Journal of Insurance and Indemnity Law entitled “Consider Removing Your Next PIP Case to Federal Court.” The article explores the procedural and strategic considerations involved in seeking a removal of a claim for first-party no-fault benefits. For more information, click on the headline.

It’s a long-standing principle that no-fault insurers can assert common-law defenses, such as fraud in the application, in order to obtain rescission of a policy and avoid liability for payment of benefits on a claim. If a policy is rescinded, it’s as if the policy was never issued in the first place.

The innocent-third-party rule was a judicially created exception to this principle. Under the rule, insurers couldn’t use the defense of fraud in the application against a third party (that is, someone other than the policyholder) making a claim under a policy. The reasoning was that, because the third-party claimant didn’t commit the fraud, it was unfair for insurance companies to rescind the policy based on fraud.

We take a look at the recent Michigan Supreme Court decision in Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, and what this means for insurance companies moving forward. Click the headline for further details.

Collins Einhorn Farrell attorneys Colleen H. Burke, Brian D. Einhorn, and Peter J. Tomasek successfully defended their clients in a legal-malpractice case. The case stemmed from a personal-injury accident at the plaintiff’s apartment complex. Brian, Colleen, and Peter obtained summary disposition for the defendants by successfully arguing that, based on the plaintiff’s original complaint, the plaintiff couldn’t show that the defendants caused her alleged damages. The plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to amend her complaint. But Brian, Colleen, and Peter argued that the proposed amendments did not revive the claims. The Court agreed with the Collins Einhorn attorneys and dismissed all claims against their clients.