MORE HARVEY KRUSE NEWS
MICHAEL SCHMIDT VICTORIOUS IN TREE STAND CASE IN FEDERAL COURT FOR BASS PRO SHOP
Hilaski v Bass Pro Shop, U. S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, claim by the plaintiff for injuries including a fractured ankle resulting in surgery and internal fixation from falling from a tree stand which he claimed was improperly designed, manufactured and sold. We filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that there was no proof or evidence that the tree stand was sold by Bass Pro Shop, that the claim was based on speculation and conjecture, and that even if the tree stand was sold by Bass Pro Shop, there was no proof of any negligence by Bass Pro Shop in the sale of the tree stand, no evidence of any express warranty, and no evidence of any breach of an express warranty. In response to our motion for judgment, the case was dismissed.
MIKE SCHMIDT WINS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE REMOVED TO FEDERAL COURT
Thomas Craig v Walsh Construction Company of Illinois, U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, plaintiff brought suit against Walsh Construction Company of Illinois as general contractor for injuries from a construction accident. Craig fell approximately 25 feet from shoring which was being dismantled by his employer’s work crew. The plaintiff claimed permanent disability from his work as a carpenter from alleged multiple injuries from the fall. There was a comp lien of approximately $200,000. We removed the case to U. S. District Court, to complete discovery and filed a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim against Walsh as general contractor was barred because there was no common work area. We obtained a summary judgment from Judge Arthur Tarnow on the basis that there was no evidence of a common work area.
JIM SUKKAR WINS LEMON LAW TRIAL IN KALAMAZOO
Jim Sukkar obtained a defense verdict in a two day jury trial in the Kalamazoo Circuit Court. Jim represented a foreign auto manufacturer sued for breach of express and implied warranty arising out of the sale of a new motor vehicle. The Plaintiff, Ronald Leggitt, claimed that as a result of a faulty oil pump, oil was discharged from the engine of his 18 month old vehicle. Plaintiff’s expert, a certified mechanic testified that based upon the wear observed he believed that the oil pump malfunctioned causing increased oil pressure which resulted in loss of oil through the oil filter port. Jim presented the dealer mechanic who inspected the vehicle the day after the occurrence as well as the manufacturer’s regional parts and service manager. The mechanic observed that the oil was expelled through the oil filter port. However, the aftermarket oil filter which was not installed by an authorized dealer was misaligned and improperly installed. The parts and service manager determined that the warranty did not apply under these circumstances. The jury found that the condition that gave rise to the engine failure was not the responsibility of the manufacturer.
MICHAEL SCHMIDT PERSAUDES COURT TO REFORM INSURANCE POLICY AND DENY ENHANCED COVERAGE AS A MATTER OF LAW
Manier v MIC General Insurance Corporation, Washtenaw County Circuit Court. Plaintiff filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that MIC had improperly rescinded and reformed an auto liability insurance policy based on a misrepresentation in the application. The minor plaintiffs were all severely injured in an auto accident and sought recovery under the MIC policy issued to William D. Manier for the policy limits of $100,000/$300,000. We succeeded on a motion for summary disposition on the basis that the policy of insurance issued to Manier’s parents was reformed due to an intentional misrepresentation made by Manier’s mother that Manier resided with his parents and that his vehicles were garaged there. MIC discovered this misrepresentation after an accident involving one of Manier’s vehicles in which his three children were injured. We successfully argued that under the reformed policy the children were "family members", and thus pursuant to the household exclusion, any liability coverage available to them would be limited to the Michigan financial responsibility limits of $20,000/$40,000.
MIKE SCHMIDT WINS $10 MILLION INSURANCE COVERAGE ARBITRATION
Machining Enterprises, Inc. v Wausau Business Insurance Company, Oakland County Circuit Court number 04-056494-CK, claim by Machining Enterprises, Inc. for insurance coverage for underlying claims made against Machining Enterprises, Inc. (“MEI”) based on a General Motors recall, in which MEI sought in excess of $10,000,000 for indemnification and defense costs. After the case pended in Oakland County Circuit Court for a year, the case was sent to binding arbitration. After a week long arbitration hearing, the arbitrators ruled in a 2-1 written decision that Wausau had no duty to provide coverage or a defense to MEI for the underlying claims, that there was no “occurrence”, that there was no “property damage”, that coverage was barred by the “work/product” exclusions (k), (l), (m) and (n), that the only damage referred to was to MEI’s own product and for repair and replacement of MEI’s own product, that there was never any claim for “property damage” as defined by the policy, that MEI’s conduct in regard to Wausau’s investigation showed that MEI did not believe that the claims were covered and that MEI breached its obligation to cooperate and provide notice to Wausau regarding the underlying claims. Following entry of the arbitration award, Wausau filed a motion to enter judgment on the award and MEI filed a motion to vacate the award. After the parties submitted briefs and argued the motions, Judge Goldsmith entered his opinion and order granting Wausau’s motion to enter judgment on the arbitration award and denying MEI’s motion to vacate the arbitration award, holding that the arbitration panel correctly cited and applied controlling principles of insurance law and that the arbitrators did not refuse to hear material evidence submitted by MEI.
JIM SUKKAR VICTORIOUS IN SEVEN DAY TRIAL
Jim Sukkar prevailed in a seven day jury trial before Judge Robert Ziolkowski of the Wayne County Circuit Court. Sukkar represented a truck driver and a trucking company in a lawsuit filed by Jill and Donald Yanick arising out of a January, 2005 incident where the Plaintiffs alleged scrap flew from Defendants’ truck and struck the vehicle driven by Jill Yanick, and as a result Mrs. Yanick slammed on her brakes and, in an attempt to avoid flying debris, twisted her body which resulted in a herniated disc at L5-S1 which required surgery. It was the Defendant’s position that Mrs. Yanick’s condition was pre-existing and of a degenerative nature. Jim presented a biomechanic who testified as to the low level of force involved in bringing a vehicle to a stop. Mrs. Yanick had surgery in 1989 for herniated discs at the L2-3 and L3-4 levels. It was noted that the L5-S1 disc was degenerating at that time. Mrs. Yanick’s surgeon disabled her from working as a nurse and testified that her condition was caused by the subject accident. The jury did not agree and found that Mrs. Yanick was not injured.
MICHAEL SCHMIDT WINS UNDERINSURED HEART ATTACK DEATH CASE AND SAVES CLIENT $250,000
Jimmy Kasmikha, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Selma Kasmikha, Deceased v Integon National Insurance Company, Oakland County Circuit Court, plaintiff filed a claim for underinsured motorist benefits seeking the underinsured motorist limits of $250,000 as a result of an auto accident with an alleged underinsured motorist which allegedly resulted in a heart attack and death of Selma Kasmikha. The plaintiff initially sued the underinsured motorist, who settled for the policy limits of $100,000. The plaintiff then filed the underinsured motorist claim against Integon. We filed a motion for summary disposition arguing that the underinsured motorist claim was barred by the release entered in the underlying action which released the underlying tortfeasor and “all other persons, firms, corporations, liable or who might be claimed to be liable. . .” The plaintiff responded that Integon had approved the underlying settlement, and that the parties to the underlying case did not intend to release the underinsured motorist claim. The plaintiff and the insurer of the underlying defendant submitted a reformed release indicating that their intent was specifically not to release the underinsured motorist claim. In addition, the plaintiff filed a cross-motion for summary disposition arguing that there was no issue of fact, and that the underinsured motorist was responsible for the accident and the experts had established that the decedent’s heart attack was a result of the auto accident. We responded that there were issues of fact regarding who caused the accident and whether the heart attack was a result of the auto accident, but more importantly, that Integon was a third party beneficiary of the underlying release and that Integon’s rights became vested as soon as the release was executed and thereafter the plaintiff and the underinsured motorist and his insurer had no right to make any modification of the release to the detriment of Integon. The trial court agreed with all of our arguments and granted summary disposition in favor of Integon.
MIKE SCHMIDT WINS SUMMARY DISPOSITION IN BREACH OF CONTRACT AND BAD FAITH ACTION
Latta v Nationwide Property & Casualty Insurance Company and Kimberly Byrne, claim for bad faith and breach of contract seeking to enforce an alleged settlement agreement of an underlying claim by Chad Latta against a Nationwide insured, Glenwood Apartments, for an alleged premises injury claim. The plaintiff’s claim in the underlying action was for $200,000. The plaintiff made numerous offers, Nationwide made two counter-offers, but the plaintiff did not accept either of Nationwide’s counter-offers and continued making additional offers until the statute of limitations expired with no agreement being made. We obtained a summary disposition on behalf of Nationwide and the Nationwide claim rep, Kimberly Byrne, on the basis that the plaintiff had no claim for bad faith against the insurer of a defendant, and that the plaintiff’s claim to enforce the settlement failed because the plaintiff failed to prove an offer and acceptance.
MIKE GUSS AND CHRIS SCOTT WIN DEFENSE VERDICT
IN PARAMEDIC MALPRACTICE DEATH CASE
Mike and Chris won a defense verdict in a two week paramedic malpractice wrongful death case, wherein the decedent’s survivors alleged that the decedent, after having sustained a fall and a C2 odontoid fracture, was mishandled by the paramedic and EMS crew, resulting in a shift and/or displacement of an odontoid fracture. The fracture allegedly compressed the spinal cord, resulting in a pulmonary and cardio arrest, and resultant brain damage. Decedent was removed from life support several days later.
Plaintiffs alleged conscious pain and suffering on behalf of the decedent and the loss of love and society for 11 children and 44 grandchildren.
The trial proofs concerned the testimony of approximately 9 lay witnesses and 7 medical treaters and experts. The defendant’s case was based upon an assertion that the scene witnesses (decedent’s family members) fabricated their version of events, and it was asserted that their version of events was not consistent with EMS and initial hospital triage documentation.
The jury returned a verdict for defendant in approximately an hour and five minutes. The defendant will be entitled to approximately $60,000 to $80,000 in case evaluation sanctions.
DENNIS GOEBEL AND MEL KARFIS PREVAIL IN DEATH CASE
IN MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
This is a wrongful death product liability case in which Vernon Wingard was caught between the end of a conveyor and fixed barrier guarding. He was crushed to death. The Estate claimed that the conveyor was negligently designed, was defective and was unreasonably dangerous. The case was defended on the basis that the customer was offered but did not order the manufacturer’s suggested light curtain guarding. Subsequent to issuance of the purchase order the customer directed a third-party to install end of the line barrier guarding. The case was tried and the jury returned a verdict of “no cause for action”. Plaintiff took an appeal alleging that sufficient evidence had been submitted and that the Court should have directed a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff. The Court of Appeals upheld the Trial Jury’s verdict of no cause for action.
DENNIS GOEBEL AND MEL KARFIS WIN PRODUCTS CASE
IN FEDERAL COURT
United States District Judge David Lawson has granted a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Dennis and Mel in this product liability case in which the quadriplegic Plaintiff claimed that his use of an allegedly defective ROHO air cushion caused a stage 1 pressure sore which did not heal and which became a stage 4 open wound. The Plaintiff alleged that the air cushion was defectively designed and manufactured such that in June 2001 there was a catastrophic loss of air from the cushion. The loss of air allegedly caused the Plaintiff to “bottom out” resulting in a pressure sore on his buttocks. The Plaintiff claimed that the loss of air was due to a change in ambient temperature, his left pelvic obliquity, shifting weight during the course of the day, the cushion allowed capillary occlusion to occur and/or that the air valve may have leaked. The Defendant denied that the cushion was negligently designed and/or manufactured. The Plaintiff used the Defendant’s cushion for several years before the incident and for two years afterward. There were no prior instances of catastrophic air loss. In addition, pressure sores can develop in quadriplegic patients even when they are most vigilant about their pressure relief regimen. The Court granted Summary Judgment because the Plaintiff failed to produce evidence of causation. The Court found that the Plaintiff did no more than describe possibilities and therefore amounted to speculation.
LARRY DAVIDSON WINS A SLIP AND FALL
AND TWO FOOD POISONING CASES FOR BRAVOKILO
In the past few months, Larry Davidson has won three cases for Bravokilo, Inc., the operator of many Burger King restaurants in Michigan, without even having to appear for oral arguments. Two of the cases were pending in Washtenaw County Circuit Court and the third was filed in Saginaw District Court. Two of the cases alleged food poisoning, and the third was a premises liability action:
In Reid v. Bravokilo, Inc., the plaintiff brought a premises liability action in Washtenaw County Circuit Court, alleging that he fell on a step within the restaurant. After the plaintiff testified at deposition regarding the facts and circumstances of the incident, a motion for summary disposition was filed on the basis that the condition of the premises was open and obvious. Plaintiff’s counsel did not respond to that motion and the court granted summary disposition without requiring oral argument.
In McKissic v. Bravokilo, Inc., the plaintiff alleged that she suffered food poisoning after consuming food from a Burger King restaurant. After obtaining the testimony of the plaintiff under oath, we filed a motion for summary disposition. The primary argument was that the food purchased from Burger King could not have been the source of the bacteria because the incubation period between the time of consumption and the presence of symptoms was insufficient according to the prevailing view of the medical community. The plaintiff initially responded to the motion, but then agreed to dismiss the matter with prejudice on the day before the scheduled hearing date.
In Mahony v. Bravokilo, Inc., the plaintiff filed an action in the Saginaw District Court, alleging food poisoning. We ultimately convinced the attorney for the plaintiff to dismiss the action with prejudice after establishing that the restaurant in question was not operated by Bravokilo, Inc.
DALE BURMEISTER WINS ANOTHER FEDERAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ACT CASE
IN WASHTENAW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
An electrical utility company acquired a prescriptive easement to run electrical lines across a parcel of property but the property owner challenged the right of a cable operator to piggyback on that easement to string its television and internet wire. Judge Morris ruled, however, that the cable company's wire did not impose an additional burden on the prescriptive easement and held that adding the cable to existing utility poles did not run afoul of the Constitution.
DENNIS GOEBEL AND MEL KARFIS WIN FOUR-WEEK FEDERAL JURY TRIAL
IN AIRPLANE CRASH CASE
Randall Torno and his wife filed a products liability action in the Federal Court in Detroit alleging that he sustained an L1 burst fracture and paraplegia as a result of an experimental aircraft crash in which Mr. Torno claimed that an RE Phelon engine ignition component failed causing his aircraft to lose power and crash in Monroe County, Michigan in June 2001. Mr. Torno was an engineer who built an experimental aircraft which utilized a 50 horsepower two-cycle engine. He claimed that an RE Phelon trigger coil was used in the ignition system, that the coil failed, causing the engine to overheat, burn a hole in one of the pistons, that there was a loss of power and that the aircraft crashed resulting in his permanent injuries. The case was defended on the basis that the trigger coil did not fail, but that Mr. Torno’s alterations to the engine and its components resulted in a lean fuel mixture causing the engine to overheat and burn a hole in one piston. As a result of the crash, Mr. Torno sustained an L1 burst fracture of his vertebrae. He sustained a permanent loss of use of his lower extremities as well as affecting internal organs effected by the paraplegia. In addition, Mr. Torno was an engineer who earned $75,000 a year and claimed reduction and earning capacity, future attendance services and other economic damages. After a four week trial the jury returned a verdict that RE Phelon Company was not negligent, i.e., no cause for action.
DALE BURMEISTER AWARDED $10,000 IN CONTEMPT OF COURT SANCTIONS
IN TRADEMARK DISPUTE
Following a full evidentiary hearing in federal court, Judge Cook awarded nearly $10,000 in contempt of court sanctions for violations of a permanent injunction Dale had obtained involving Subway trademarks and trade dress. Defendant also agreed at the hearing to remove or paint over various marks, copyrighted menu items, and decorative touches that had a tendency to mislead the public into believing that the restaurant was a franchised operation.
BILL RIVARD WINS NO CAUSE VERDICT
IN ACCOUNTING MALPRACTICE SUIT
Bill Rivard recently received a defense verdict for our client in an accounting malpractice suit following a jury trial in Oakland County Circuit Court. Plaintiffs, husband and wife, for whom defendant had prepared tax returns for more than 20 years, claimed that in February of March, 2004, one or the other of them brought defendant $499,000 in W2Gs for slot machine winnings for the year 2003. The parties disagreed on the date the documentation was brought to defendant, and whether plaintiffs brought any documentation of losses. Defendant testified he advised plaintiffs he needed documentation of losses to complete the return and waited. About one year after leaving their documents with defendant, plaintiffs demanded return of the documentation they provided him, and there was a dispute regarding whether defendant complied with their request by making their documentation available to them. Plaintiffs claimed damages for late filing fees and interest allegedly payable to the state and federal governments, and accounting fees for having to have an accountant reconstruct their documentation from IRS "transcripts." Defendant argued that even the documentation of losses plaintiffs presented at trial, which was the documentation they allegedly provided in 2004, was insufficient to prepare an accurate return, since records of losses were only for partial casino play while using a so-called "players club" card. Bill had plaintiff's expert accountant barred from testifying to state penalty and interest when he established by voir dire of the expert that no assessment had issued, the first of several steps required for the state treasurer to establish liability under by Michigan statutes, and because the accountant had never represented a client through the administrative steps for assessment, appeal, etc., provided by Michigan statutes. Plaintiffs' claim for accounting malpractice was dismissed by the court because defendant was not a certified public accountant. The jury returned verdicts for defendant on plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, fraud, and claim and delivery. An appeal was not filed.
DENNIS GOEBEL WINS INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL IN PRODUCTS CASE
ON IMPORTANT ISSUE INVOLVING NON-PARTY FAULT OF AN EMPLOYER
In Sandusky v McNally Electric, Inc., we filed a notice of non-party fault of the employer in a products liability case. Plaintiff then amended the complaint and added the employer as a direct defendant. At the end of discovery, the employer filed a motion for summary disposition which was "opposed" by the plaintiff. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the employer finding that there was no evidence of intentional act. Thereafter, plaintiff moved to strike our notice of non-party fault alleging that the employer owed no duty to the employee and in addition, that since the court granted summary disposition for the employer that it precluded our notice of non-party fault. We took an interlocutory appeal which was accepted by the Court of Appeals. Briefs were submitted to the Court of Appeals which decided the issue without oral argument. The Court of Appeals found that the plain language of the comparative fault statutes, MCL 600.2957 and 600.6304, allows the employer to be identified as a non-party at fault. Further, it held that there is no conflict with the Worker's Disability Compensation Act, MCL 418.101. The Court of Appeals ruled that the trial court erred in both concluding that a duty is required in order to assess fault against the non-party and that there was no duty owed to plaintiff by the employer in the case.
DALE BURMEISTER PREVAILS IN THE MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
IN FEDERAL CABLE COMMUNICATIONS ACT CASE
In Heydon v MediaOne, a dispute arose over attaching or “piggybacking on” utility pole easements running across private property in the Ann Arbor area. A variety of claims and defenses were involved in the litigation, including a constitutional challenge to the Federal Cable Communications Act of 1984, whether attaching a coaxial cable to existing electric utility poles unreasonably increased the burden on the easement, whether an unrecorded right of way agreement could be assigned, and the like. The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled as a matter of law that the attachment of a cable television wire to poles within an electric company’s easement does not materially increase the burden on the servient estate. It went on to find that because our client’s intended use of the easement would not have violated the terms of the servitude or unreasonably increase the burden on the servient estate, Detroit Edison was entitled to partially assign an interest in its utility easement to MediaOne. Finally, it concluded that reasonable access of the easement by our client did not and would not in the future constitute trespass. A motion for rehearing in the Court of Appeals has also now been denied.
DENNIS GOEBEL AND MEL KARFIS WIN PRODUCTS LIABILITY
AMPUTATION CASE IN FEDERAL COURT
This was a product liability lawsuit in which forty-eight year old James Cobbs was employed by Jay Dee Contractors. Jay Dee Contractors is involved in underground tunneling. It uses a tunneling machine to bore a hole in the ground and then lines the hole with cement grout. Jay Dee Contractors purchased a grout pump machine from Schwing America Inc. On May 23, 2002 Mr. Cobbs was cleaning the grout pump at the end of the day. He had the hoses off and portions of the machine exposed letting it run while he sprayed water on the interior of the machine. He claims that he was looking for a shutoff switch and as he leaned against the machine his right hand was sucked into an inlet and he sustained amputations of the tips of three fingers of the right hand. He claimed that the machine was defective because it did not have an interlock device and that the Defendant failed to properly warn of the dangers. Mr. Cobb claimed that he was not able to return to work and had psychological injuries in addition to the amputation injuries. Forty-eight months after the accident Mr. Cobbs had still not returned to work. On February 13, 2006, Judge Duggan issued a written opinion granting our summary judgment for Schwing America, Inc. Judge Duggan found that pursuant to MCL 600.2947(7), misuse did occur by Mr. Cobbs intentionally reaching twelve inches into the machine while it was operating and therefore granted the motion on the basis of misuse. Judge Duggan also found that the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the six elements of the Michigan Risk Utility Test.
MICHAEL SCHMIDT PREVAILS
IN CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT CASE
Steven Nickell and Hayley Nickell v Howard Structural Steel, Inc., et al, Wayne County Circuit Court, claim by Steven Nickell, an ironworker, for construction accident injuries sustained in a fall on a construction project. The injuries included an acetabular fracture, lower back injuries and an alleged closed head injury and neuropsychological problems. We represented Howard Structural Steel, the structural steel contractor who contracted with Nickell’s employer, American Erectors, to do the erection. We filed a motion for summary disposition arguing that the plaintiff’s claim against Howard for failing to provide guardrails on the job failed to state a claim because the subcontractor, American Erectors, had contracted to provide 100% fall protection, pursuant to Fultz v Union-Commerce Associates, 470 Mich 460 (2004), even if Howard had a contractual duty to deliver guardrails, this did not create a negligence claim, and further the American Erectors’ foreman testified that even if guardrails had been delivered he would not have installed them at the time of the accident. The case evaluation award against Howard was zero dollars and the case was dismissed.
BARRY SUTTON PREVAILS IN SERIOUS IMPAIRMENT CASE
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
Register v. Sledge, Michigan Court of Appeals. In this case in which Plaintiff claimed closed head injury, neck and back problems, and seizures arising out of a rear end collision, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition. Although the plaintiff had submitted three affidavits of treating physicians, each concluding that she suffered from a serious neurological injury or serious impairment, the Court found that the affidavits were conclusory and not supported by the records. In doing so, the Court affirmed the importance of looking beyond the conclusory statements within an affidavit, and noted that a court must conduct a careful review of the facts underlying those opinions before relying upon them. Additionally, the Court held that the plaintiff had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support any claim that her general ability to lead a normal life had been materially altered. The Court therefore concluded that summary disposition was merited under Kreiner.
MICHAEL SCHMIDT WINS "DISTRACTED CUSTOMER" INJURY CASE
IN COURT OF APPEALS
Miller v Bass Pro Shop, Court of Appeals affirmed our summary disposition. The plaintiff tripped and fell over the base of a display sign at the Bass Pro Shop. She claimed that she was distracted by taxidermy mounts displayed by the store. The plaintiff argued that there should be a "distracted customer" exception to the open and obvious defense. The Court of Appeals affirmed our summary disposition and ruled that there is no "distracted customer" exception to the open and obvious defense, that the only exception is the "special aspects analysis" and that the plaintiff’s claim did not meet this analysis and thus was rejected by the court. The court further held that despite the huge debate that exists in the jurisprudence of the state over what constitutes open and obvious and the subtleties that the Supreme Court defines as fitting within that rule, "this case appears to be at the opposite end of the spectrum."
ABSOLUTE INTOXICATION STATUTE VICTORY
RECORDED BY BARRY SUTTON
Krause v. Wadle, Oakland County, Michigan. In this social host case, the plaintiff, a minor and former model, suffered serious internal injuries which required numerous surgeries and left extensive scarring. The plaintiff sought to hold the individuals liable for supplying alcohol to her on a claim that their actions produced her intoxication and subsequent automobile accident. Her demand was $250,000. We filed a motion for summary disposition on the basis that the claim was barred under the absolute intoxication statute. After briefing, the plaintiff agreed to relief requested, and an order granting the motion was entered.
BARRY SUTTON PREVAILS IN COVERAGE CASE INVOLVING AN EXCLUSION BARRING COVERAGE
WHEN A VEHICLE IS BEING USED TO TRANSPORT FOR A FEE
Rollin v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Co., Wayne County, Michigan. In this insurance coverage dispute, the plaintiff suffered serious injuries while she was working within an ambulance while that vehicle was transporting a patient to the hospital. She sought uninsured motorist benefits. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of our client under the exclusion which barred coverage when a vehicle is being used to transport a person for a fee. The court reasoned that the patient was being transported to the hospital for a fee, and that the plain language of the exclusion applied.
HARVEY KRUSE PUBLISHES REPORT OF OVER 200 COURTROOM
VICTORIES IN 2003-2005
During the past several years, Harvey Kruse has recorded 211 victories in courtroom battles that are cataloged in a comprehensive report issued last year. They include 26 appellate wins, 13 trial and arbitration successes, 139 motions for summary judgment or disposition in which we were victorious, and various other administrative and miscellaneous proceedings in which we prevailed. Click here for a complete copy of the report.
|
| |
|
