Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an instructive opinion in Ibo Ware v. Meemic Insurance Company addressing the issue of coverage owed to an individual involved in an accident with an uninsured motor vehicle.
Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an instructive opinion in Fuchs v. Michigan Catastrophic Claims Association addressing a claimant’s burden of submitting reasonable proof in support of a PIP claim.
In August of 2001 an individual suffered a fractured vertebra in his back due to a motor vehicle collision. Plaintiff had a subsequent surgery to treat the injury. The individual developed degenerative disc disease which eventually caused spinal cord complications leading to three more surgeries in 2018 and 2019
This case arises from an April 2021 Michigan auto accident. Claimant was seriously injured and subsequently treated at VHS of Michigan d/b/a Detroit Medical Center. The PIP insurer determined that a vehicle involved in the crash was not garaged at the address listed on the policy and rescinded the policy for fraud. As a result of that fraud, the PIP insurer denied the claim in its entirety. Both claimant and VHS were innocent third-parties.
A dairy inspector from the Michigan Department of Agriculture conducted an inspection at a family dairy farm in Dundee and identified a protein buildup which needed to be cleaned inside the farm’s 1,500-gallon bulk milk tank. Despite admitting unfamiliarity with a specific cleaner called “Cold War,” the Inspector stated the chemical cleaner could work for the task of cleaning out the tank. Experts later testified Cold War was a cleaner designed for automated systems, not manual application. The product’s label carried warnings about severe chemical burns, the dangers of breathing its fumes, and the need for protective equipment and ventilation.
Marilyn McDougall and her husband, Larimore McDougall, were killed in an automobile accident. The Estate of Marilyn McDougle filed an auto negligence claim against the Estate of Larimore McDougle. The couple had a no-fault auto insurance policy with MemberSelect Insurance Company. The policy provided bodily-injury liability limits of $250,000per person/$500,000 per accident. Both Larimore and Marilyn were named insureds on the policy. The couple never signed any form electing lower coverage. The policy included a “step-down” provision reducing coverage for bodily injury to the state minimum if the claimant was an insured or resident relative. The claimant in this case was both. MemberSelect sought to reduce the available coverage to Michigan $50,000 minimum.
A material misrepresentation made to an insurance company can provide the basis for a policy’s recission. A real estate investor/insured purchased a duplex in Detroit in 2021 with the intent of renting the first-floor unit to his ex-girlfriend. The investor/insured purchased homeowners’ insurance for the property.
A couple who bought a home that was later discovered to have a history of mold, asbestos, and flooding failed in their bid to reverse a trial court’s judgment in favor of the home seller. The couple contended the trial court erred when it denied their motion to add an expert witness to testify about the home’s value when it was sold.
In a published Michigan Court of Appeals case, the Court of Appeals considered whether rescission of Plaintiff’s automobile insurance policy was appropriate due to his fraudulent misrepresentation when he purchased the policy.
When litigation involves issues of disputed expert testimony, the trial court serves as a gatekeeper to ensure that the trier of fact is hearing only trustworthy evidence. Expert testimony is admissible if it is both reliable and relevant to the issues being litigated. Daubert v. Merrell Down Pharmaceuticals, Inc. set forth several factors for judicial consideration in evaluating admissibility of scientific or expert opinions
For a Plaintiff to succeed on a premises liability claim, that plaintiff must establish that the Defendants had actual or constructive notice of the allegedly hazardous condition. Recently, the Michigan Court of Appeals made an important ruling which helped to clarify the notice required for a plaintiff to succeed on a premises liability claim.
