Category

Case Outcomes
Featured News

CEF obtains historic Supreme Court decision overruling “Denney damages”

The Michigan Supreme Court ended its term with a historic decision, overruling so-called “Denney damages.” Collins Einhorn attorney Michael Cook represented the defendants in the Supreme Court and successfully argued for the overruling. In 2016, the Michigan Court of Appeals dramatically changed Michigan law on wrongful-death damages in a case named, Denney v Kent County...
The Michigan Supreme Court ended its term with a historic decision, overruling so-called “Denney damages.” Collins Einhorn attorney Michael Cook...
Click here to read full article.
Featured News

Attorney Christopher Petrick Obtains Dismissal of Breach of Contract Claim in an Insurance Coverage and Indemnity Dispute

Collins Einhorn Farrell PC attorney Christopher Petrick recently successfully defended an insurance carrier in an insurance coverage and indemnification dispute.  The underlying case involved a dog bite incident in which ownership of the dog was in dispute between a rescue agency and one of their fosters.  The underlying case proceeded to trial, and the jury...
Collins Einhorn Farrell PC attorney Christopher Petrick recently successfully defended an insurance carrier in an insurance coverage and indemnification dispute. ...
Click here to read full article.

Case Outcomes

03
05 '13

Michigan Court of Appeals holds that migrant farm workers are Michigan residents while living and working in Michigan for purposes of the no-fault act.

May 3, 2013

Michigan’s No-Fault Act generally requires Michigan residents to purchase no-fault insurance for vehicles they own or operate in Michigan. It also requires insurers who sell auto insurance in Michigan to pay no-fault benefits to their insuredout-of-state residents who are injured while in Michigan. In Tienda v Integon Nat’l Ins Co, the issue was which insurer…

18
04 '13

Michigan Court of Appeals holds that a bobtail insurance policy must be construed according to the no-fault act, not according to its terms

April 18, 2013

In Lashbrook v State Farm Automobile Mutual Insurance Company,the Michigan Court of Appeals held that insurance policies must be read as meeting the no-fault act’s minimum requirements, even if those policies purport to provide less coverage than mandated by the act. Applying this principle, the Lashbrook court held that a bobtail insurance policy — which, by…

12
04 '13

Michigan’s Supreme Court reins in attenuated causal connections in “first party” no-fault claims

April 12, 2013

Michigan law provides that, unless a special motor cycle policy is in place, no-fault benefits for motorcycle accidents are available only if a motor vehicle (think cars and trucks, not motorcycles) is “involved in” the accident and special priorities rules apply. The Michigan Supreme Court’s April 11, 2013 opinion in McPherson v Progressive Mich Ins…

02
03 '13

Notice requirements for claims under the “highway exception” to governmental immunity are strictly enforced

March 2, 2013

Michigan grants governmental agencies immunity from many forms of tort liability. One exception to governmental immunity, however, is the so-called “highway exception.” This exception, codified here by the Michigan Legislature, generally provides that a person injured on a public highway that was not kept in a state of reasonable repair may obtain damages from the…

27
02 '13

Gunn v. Minton: The Supreme Court’s new ruling on patent law and legal malpractice claims

February 27, 2013

In Gunn v. Minton, Docket No. 11-1118 (U.S. Feb. 20, 2013), the United States Supreme Court made clear that federal courts will have exclusive jurisdiction for only the rarest of rare legal malpractice claims. In doing so, it reversed the judgment of the Texas Supreme Court, which had concluded that the plaintiff’s legal malpractice claim…

08
10 '12

Einhorn Wins Motion for Summary Judgment in Legal Malpractice Case

October 8, 2012

CEFU attorney, Brian D. Einhorn, recently won a summary judgment motion in a legal malpractice case, in the Tuscola County Circuit Court. Plaintiff alleged that Brian’s client (an attorney) gave her the wrong advice when she was serving as conservator of an estate, resulting in $650,000 verdict against her. Brian argued that his client’s representation…

Have questions or looking for further information? Contact one of our attorneys.