General and Automotive Liability

10 '14

Recently, in Sholberg v Truman, the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the notion that the title owner of real property isn’t always the same as one who is in “possession and control” for purposes of a public nuisance claim. Much like in cases of premises liability, if another party is exercising control over the property and…

09 '14

Can an insurer (accidentally) breathe life into a long-dead PIP claim by making a payment?

September 29, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Statutes of limitation are great, or terrible, depending on which side of the “v” you’re on. They exist to prevent stale lawsuits. They basically say, “You can’t wait forever to sue someone.” But in Jesperson v Auto Club Insurance Association, the Court of Appeals had to decide whether a single payment of an insurance benefit…

08 '14

Theresa M. Asoklis Named 2015 Best Lawyers “Lawyer of the Year” in Detroit

August 18, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Collins Einhorn Farrell PC attorney Theresa M. Asoklis has been named the Best Lawyers®2015 Professional Malpractice Law – Defendants “Lawyer of the Year” in Metro Detroit. Only a single lawyer in each practice area and designated metropolitan area is honored as the “Lawyer of the Year,” making this accolade particularly significant. These lawyers are selected…

07 '14

The Michigan Supreme Court construes a “business-use” exclusion

July 8, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Michigan law requires courts to construe insurance policies as a whole, giving effect to any unambiguous language. These principles are often easier to state than to apply. The Michigan Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Hunt v. Drielick is a case in point. In Hunt, the Court addressed a “business-use” exclusion in a “Insurance for Non-Trucking…

04 '14

Moloughney and Smith Obtain Summary Disposition for Insured Client in Wayne County Circuit Court

April 30, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Attorneys Kevin Moloughney and Kyle Smith obtained summary disposition for their insured client in the Wayne County Circuit Court. Plaintiff contended that the client negligently hired a contractor to perform excavation around the client’s home. The excavator became trapped in a collapsed ditch and plaintiff, a Grosse Pointe Shores Department of Public Safety officer, responded…

03 '14

Michigan Court of Appeals rejects slip-and-fall claim based on speculative theory

March 7, 2014

Hiro Adachi

The open and obvious doctrine is straightforward: plaintiffs cannot recover for injuries from hazards that a reasonable person could have seen, unless those hazards were unavoidable or especially dangerous. This logic undermines most slip-and-fall claims based on snow and ice. As the Michigan Supreme Court put it (perhaps somewhat sarcastically) inHoffner v. Lanctoe, “Michigan, being…

02 '14

Court of Appeals holds that property owner with unique knowledge of brickwork and home repairs had constructive knowledge of defect in brick steps.

February 27, 2014

Hiro Adachi

Notice is a common issue in premises liability litigation. If someone is injured on another’s property, the owner is not liable for the injury unless he had notice—whether actual or constructive—of the defect that caused the injury. In Grandberry-Lovette v Garascia, __ Mich App __ (Jan. 2, 2014) (Docket No. 311668), the Court of Appeals…

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

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…

07 '13

One certified insurance policy is enough to qualify for PIP benefits

July 29, 2013

Hiro Adachi

Automobile insurers authorized to conduct business in Michigan must file a written certification stating that its non-resident insureds are covered by personal protection or “PIP” insurance. A “nonadmitted” insurer—one that is not authorized to sell insurance in Michigan—may file this certification voluntarily. These certifications can affect entitlement to benefits: an injured person is not entitled…

Tag