Insights

12 '13

Sixth Circuit holds that an attorney’s reputation shouldn’t be tarnished over a debatable difference of opinion.

December 5, 2013

In United States v Llanez-Garcia,a federal public defender made an honest mistake. That mistake snowballed into not one but two reprimands from the district court. But the Sixth Circuit recognized the high stakes that disciplinary matters raise for attorneys: “An attorney’s reputation is her most valuable possession. It forms the basis for her peers’ view…

11 '13

Medical and economic expert testimony: some insights from Clerc

November 25, 2013

Hiro Adachi

The admission of expert testimony in Michigan is rarely a straightforward matter—yet it can make or break a plaintiff’s case. It is critical, therefore, for litigators to remain up-to-date on Michigan appellate courts’ jurisprudence in this area. Clerc v Chippewa County War Memorial Hospital is the latest entry in this field. In Clerc, the defendants…

11 '13

Upcoming changes to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure

November 12, 2013

Hiro Adachi

A change to Rule 28 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure aims to make appellate briefs shorter and less redundant. Rule 28 currently requires a “statement of the case” and a separate “statement setting out the facts.” These requirements often seemed arbitrary and frequently resulted in briefs that needlessly restated facts—once in the “statement…

11 '13

Insurers asserting fraud as a defense to liability under a homeowner’s insurance policy must prove fraud by a preponderance of the evidence, not “clear and convincing” evidence.

November 12, 2013

Hiro Adachi

In Stein v Home-Owners Insurance Company(October 17, 2013), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that, when an insurance policy contains a clause voiding coverage in the event of fraud by the insured, the insurer need only meet the “preponderance of the evidence” standard rather than “clear and convincing evidence.” The plaintiff in Stein owned a…

11 '13

5 deposition pitfalls for claims adjusters involved in coverage cases

November 5, 2013

Hiro Adachi

By Julie E. Nichols (originally published in Claims Journal) An adjuster’s deposition, if relevant, can provide the backbone of a strong defense, assuming defense counsel and the adjuster can avoid some deposition traps. A few of the common pitfalls to avoid are described below: Pitfall #1: Is The Adjuster’s Deposition Relevant or Necessary? The first…

10 '13

New rules governing federal subpoenas will take effect December 1, 2013

October 30, 2013

Hiro Adachi

On December 1, 2013, federal courts will be operating under an amended Rule 45, which governs subpoenas. These changes are particularly important to attorneys who have to subpoena out-of-state or distant witnesses. Under the amended rule: A subpoena is issued from the court in which a case is pending. Previously, Rule 45 provided that a…

10 '13

The Michigan Court of Appeals applies a property insurance policy’s residence requirement, and rejects waiver and estoppel arguments

October 25, 2013

Hiro Adachi

In Null v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, the Court of Appeals concluded that an insurer properly denied coverage based on the insured’s violation of a residence requirement, even though evidence suggested that the insurer knew the named insured had changed his address. The plaintiff and her late husband were buying a home from the plaintiff’s brother-in-law,…

10 '13

Court of Appeals suggests that attorney fees are easier to get for no-fault plaintiffs than no-fault insurers.

October 17, 2013

Hiro Adachi

One facet of a no-fault system like Michigan’s is that it aims to exchange prompt payment of economic damages for the ability to sue for noneconomic damages (except for more serious injuries). Michigan’s no-fault act contains a “stick” (not a carrot) to motivate prompt payment. The act provides that a claimant can recover attorney fees…

09 '13

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals defines the scope of its jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases

September 23, 2013

Hiro Adachi

Appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy court orders can be a messy affair. As summarized in this 2008 article from the Michigan Bar Journal, the definition of “finality” for purposes of appellate jurisdiction can be fluid in the bankruptcy context. Some federal courts of appeal have viewed bankruptcy orders as different in kind from district court orders…

09 '13

How involved is “involved” under Michigan’s No-Fault Act?

September 12, 2013

Hiro Adachi

Michigan’s No-Fault Act applies only to accidents arising “out of the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle…” Because a motorcycle isn’t a “motor vehicle” as defined by the No-Fault Act, insurers are liable for benefits only if a motor vehicle—i.e., an automobile other than a motorcycle—is involved in an accident. Michigan’s courts…

Category