Brian focuses his practice in the areas of insurance coverage, general liability and commercial litigation. He has a strong record of success representing clients in both state and federal courts on a wide variety of matters, including coverage disputes, contract enforcement, product and premises liability, fraud claims, actions involving the uniform commercial code and civil rights litigation. Brian also possesses significant appellate experience, which he has used to obtain successful results for clients in front of the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court.
Obtained summary disposition of a Plaintiff’s claims for negligence following a slip-and-fall incident on a floor mat. The Plaintiff alleged a claim for premises liability against the landowner, and a claim of negligence against the company that supplied the floor mat. The Court agreed that dismissal of the Plaintiff’s negligence claims was proper, as the mat company did not owe a legal duty to the Plaintiff. (Jan 2018)
Obtained summary disposition of a Plaintiff’s claims for premises liability and violation of MCL 554.139(1)(a). The Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s premises liability claims, agreeing that the black ice at issue was open and obvious. The Court also dismissed the Plaintiff’s statutory claims, finding that there was no question of fact as to whether the area in question was fit for its intended purpose. (Jan 2018)
Obtained a defense verdict in a Wayne County first-party no-fault case. After a seven-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action, finding that plaintiff’s claim of accidental bodily injuries did not rise out of the automobile accident at issue. (Jan 2018)
Obtained summary disposition in novel no-fault priority dispute between the plaintiff’s personal auto insurer and the insurer of a city-sponsored transportation van. (Oct 2017)
Obtained summary disposition on behalf of a no-fault insurer for medical expenses arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Following the accident, Plaintiff’s health insurer (through an ERISA plan) reimbursed plaintiff’s healthcare providers at a reduced amount pursuant to their provider participation agreements, whereas plaintiff sought the remaining difference. The Court held that because the providers were not entitled to pursue the differential, Plaintiff had not “incurred” those amounts and was therefore not entitled to recover the differential. For more details, click here. (Aug 2017)
Won summary disposition in favor of a premises owner in a premises liability/loss of consortium action arising out of a trip and fall over a curb. With respect to the premise liability portion of the Plaintiffs’ claim, the Saginaw County Circuit Court agreed that the allegedly dangerous condition was open and obvious and therefore, no legal duty was owed. The Court also dismissed the loss of consortium portion of the Plaintiffs’ claim finding that it was derivative of the premises liability claim. (June 2017)
Obtained summary disposition of a Plaintiff’s claim for fraud and civil conspiracy in a First-Party Insurance Coverage Dispute. The Oakland County Circuit Court agreed that the Plaintiff could not meet the pleading requirements for a claim of fraud. The Court further agreed that the Plaintiff’s claim for conspiracy failed because he could not prove a separate, actionable tort. (June 2017)
Received summary disposition of the Plaintiff’s Third-Party Automobile Negligence claim in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The Court found, as a matter of law, that the Plaintiff was more than 50% at fault for the accident at issue and therefore, her claim was barred by MCL 500.3135(2)(b). (Mar 2017)
Collins Einhorn Farrell PC is pleased to announce that 28 lawyers have been included in the 2022 editions of The Best Lawyers in America, including four receiving “Lawyer of the Year” distinction. Eleven of the 28 lawyers have been included in the Ones to Watch edition, which recognizes attorneys who are early in their careers…
Collins Einhorn Farrell PC is pleased to announce that 19 lawyers have been included in the 2021 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America, including 5 receiving “Lawyer of the Year” distinction. Four additional lawyers have also been included in the “Ones to Watch” edition, which recognizes associates and other lawyers who are earlier in…
We are proud to announce that 22 attorneys have been named to either the 2021 Super Lawyers list, or the 2021 Super Lawyers Rising Stars list. Congratulations! Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters business, is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high degree of peer recognition…
Collins Einhorn Farrell PC is proud to announce that 15 of its attorneys have been named to the 2020 Michigan Super Lawyers list, and an additional 8 attorneys were named to the 2020 Michigan Rising Stars list. Additionally, Melissa Graves was named to the Top 50: 2020 Women Michigan Super Lawyers list. Super Lawyers, a…
Attorneys Lauren Frederick and Brian Catrinar, both members of Collins Einhorn’s General and Automotive Liability Group, recently obtained a defense verdict in a Wayne County first-party no-fault case. After a seven-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict of no cause of action, finding that plaintiff’s claim of accidental bodily injuries did not arise out of the automobile accident at issue. To learn more, click on the headline.
Attorneys Lauren A. Frederick and Brian A. Catrinar successfully obtained summary disposition in no-fault priority dispute between the plaintiff’s personal auto insurer and the insurer of a city-sponsored transportation van. At issue was whether the van at issue was being operated in the business transporting passengers pursuant to MCL 500.3114(2). Also at issue was the novel priority issue of whether the van fit the definition of a “bus” under the no-fault act, thereby triggering an exception to MCL 500.3114(2). Using the “primary purpose/incidental nature test,” Judge Chabot of the Oakland County Circuit Court held that the city-sponsored transportation van was being operated in the business of transporting passengers at the time of the accident, and that it did not qualify as a bus to trigger any of the exceptions set forth in MCL 500.3114(2). Therefore, the insurer for the city-sponsored van was first in the order of priority for payment of the plaintiff’s no-fault benefits.
Attorneys Scott Pawlak and Brian Catrinar obtained summary disposition on behalf of a no-fault insurer for medical expenses arising out of a motor vehicle accident. Following the accident, Plaintiff’s health insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield (through an ERISA plan), reimbursed plaintiff’s healthcare providers at a reduced amount pursuant to their provider participation agreements. Plaintiff then sought the difference between the Blue Cross reimbursement rate and the amount billed by the providers. Defendant argued – and the Court agreed – that the providers were statutorily bound to accept the reduced payments from Blue Cross as payment in full for their services. The Court held that because the providers were not entitled to pursue the differential, Plaintiff had not “incurred” those amounts and was therefore not entitled to recover the differential.
Attorneys Lauren A. Frederick and Brian A. Catrinar successfully argued motion for summary disposition against medical provider (Medical Rehabilitation Physicians, Comprehensive Rx and Infiniti Labs [Reed] v Auto-Owners Insurance Company). Medical providers filed suit against a defendant-insurer in Macomb County Circuit Court for breach of contract, civil conspiracy, silent fraud and conversion, claiming that the defendant-insurer wrongfully included the providers’ bills in a settlement in an underlying action involving the alleged injured party. The defendant-insurer filed a motion for summary disposition in lieu of an answer arguing that the bills were barred by the one-year-back rule and res judicata, and that the tort claims were nothing more than disguised claims for no-fault benefits. Judge Jennifer Faunce agreed with the defendant-insurer’s arguments in totality and dismissed the providers’ case with prejudice.