Nathan Peplinski

Get Adobe Flash player

AREAS OF PRACTICE:
  • Appellate Law
  • Civil Litigation
  • Construction Accidents and Defects
  • Insurance Coverage
  • Premises Liability
  • Auto Insurance
  • No Fault
  • Product Liability
BIOGRAPHY:
Born in Lapeer Michigan and raised in North Branch, Michigan, currently a resident of Clawson, Michigan
EDUCATION:
Quincy University (B.A. Summa cum laude, Political Science, 2000)
Wayne State University Law School (J.D. Order of Coif, Cum Laude, 2003)
Moot Court
BAR ADMISSION:
State Bar of Michigan 2003
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan 2007
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit 2010
United States Supreme Court 2011
United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan 2016
EMPLOYMENT HISTORY:
Shareholder and Partner at Harvey Kruse PC 2014-Present
Associate Attorney Harvey Kruse PC 2007-2014
Michigan Supreme Court, Senior Clerk to Justice Marilyn Kelly 2005-2007
Michigan Supreme Court, Clerk to Justice Marilyn Kelly 2004-2005
Michigan Court of Appeals Pre-Hearing Research Attorney 2003-2004
Michigan Court of Appeals Pre-Hearing Research Attorney (2003-2004)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Super Lawyers Michigan Rising Star 2017
Super Lawyers Michigan Rising Star 2016
Super Lawyers Michigan Rising Star 2015
Super Lawyers Michigan Rising Star 2014
Super Lawyers Michigan Rising Star 2013
Super Lawyers Michigan Rising Star 2012
Super Lawyers Michigan Rising Star 2011
Wayne State University Law School Order of Coif 2003
Quincy University Bonaventure Award for outstanding academic achievement 2000
MEMBER:
Michigan State Bar Association Appellate Section
Michigan State Bar Litigation Section
Michigan State Bar Association Negligence Section
EXPERIENCE
Trial and appellate attorney successfully represented numerous clients in circuit courts throughout the state of Michigan, the Michigan Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.
Extensive appellate research and writing experience through service with the Michigan Court of Appeals as a research attorney and the Michigan Supreme Court, where he served as the Senior Clerk advising Michigan Supreme Court Justice Marilyn Kelly.
REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS:
Amerisure Insurance Companies
Auto Club Insurance Company
Clark Construction Company Inc.
Depositors Insurance Company
GEICO Insurance
Lee Machinery Movers Inc.
Liberty Mutual Group
MEEMIC Insurance
National General Insurance
Nationwide Insurance
PVS Chemicals
Skanska USA Building Inc.
SIGNIFICANT CASES:
Jones v Meemic Insurance Company, Michigan Court of Appeals order (2017), claim for property damage from a house fire. We filed a motion for summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff's claim was barred because the policy of insurance was rescinded because of misrepresentations made in the application. The trial court denied the motion on the basis that the policy had been renewed before the fire and at the time of the renewal there was no longer a misrepresentation. We appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals who issued an order reversing the trial court and ordering summary disposition in favor of Meemic on the basis that although the representation was no longer false at the time of the renewal and as of the date of loss, this was irrelevant since the plaintiff's eligibility for the renewal hinged on the representations made in the initial application.
Nationwide Property & Cas Ins v Brown, 2017 U S Dist LEXIS 61377 (ED Mich, 2017), a declaratory action we filed to determine there was no coverage available for an alleged property loss. We filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted on the basis that there had been misrepresentations made in the application for the policy and that the insured failed to cooperate in the claims process thus voiding the policy. The court further granted our request for reimbursement of in excess of $40,000 in benefits paid to the insured
Auto Owners Insurance Co v Integon Nat’l Ins Co, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued September 17, 2015 (Docket No. 321396) reversing summary judgment for Auto Owners and remanding for entry of summary judgment for Integon because Intengon could not be held responsible for issuing a Michigan no fault policy to its North Carolina insureds given that the insureds never informed Integon that they were moving back to Michigan.
Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co v McDermott, 603 Fed Appx 374 (CA 6, 2015), affirming summary judgment in favor of the insurer because the insured failed to disclose a change in the use of the insured residence when a marijuana processing facility was created in the basement and affirming summary judgment requiring the insured to pay back the payments made by the insurer after the loss, including payments to the mortgage company.
Hatcher v Nationwide Prop & Cas Ins Co, 610 Fed Appx 507 (CA 6, 2015) affirming summary judgment for Nationwide because the insured misrepresented the facts in the application regarding the delinquency of the taxes when the insured purchased and insured the property.
Depositors Ins Co v Harris, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued January 13, 2015 (Docket No. 318269) affirming summary disposition for the insurer for claims relating to multiple deaths due to the lack of coverage under the terms of the insurance policy because supplying alcohol to a minor did not constitute an “accident.”
Williams v Nationwide Ins Co, 2014 US Dist Lexis 77091 (ED Mich, 2014), granting summary judgment to the insurer because the insured failed to provide a timely proof of loss and because the insured moved out of the insured residence without informing the insurer.
Telerico v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 529 Fed Appx 729 (6th Cir, 2013), affirming summary judgment for the insurer because the insured failed to submit a timely proof of loss.
Liberty Mut Ins Co v Davenport, 947 F Supp 2d 773 (ED Mich, 2013) granting summary judgment to Liberty Mutual because the policy’s business exclusion precluded coverage for a dog bite occurring at the insured’s home day care.
Felty v Skanska USA Building, Inc, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued July 19, 2011 (Docket No. 297991), affirming summary disposition in favor of defendant general contractor in wrongful death case for death of a mason who fell from a scaffold on the basis that the plaintiff failed to prove common work area liability.
Kent Cos, Inc v Wausau Ins Cos, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued May 3, 2011 (Docket No. 295237), affirming summary disposition for the insurer because the commercial general liability policy did not provide any coverage for claims against its insured resulting from alleged damage caused by the insured’s construction work.
In Re Romeo Montessori School Ass’n, 2011 WL 1485476 (Eastern District of Michigan Bankruptcy, 2011), summary judgment granted on the basis that the policy of insurance did not provide coverage for the claims by the students’ parents for tuition reimbursement.
Smith v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 410 Fed Appx 891 (6th Cir, 2010), in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiffs’ complaint based on discovery abuses.
Auto Club Group Ins Co v All-Glass Aquarium Co Inc, 716 F Supp2d 686 (ED Mich, 2010), summary judgment granted on the basis that the plaintiff could not prove beyond speculation that the fire damaging the subrogors’ property was caused by the defendant’s aquarium hood light.
Allerd v Sova, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued August 24, 2010 (Docket No. 285633), affirming summary disposition because the plaintiff had failed to prove proximate causation for her claimed injuries.
Integon Nat’l Ins Co v Berry, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued March 25, 2010 (Docket No. 289320), affirming summary disposition for Integon because of the insured’s failure to give proper notice of the incident and litigation.
Huda v Integon National Ins Co, 2008 US Dist. LEXIS 89372008; WL 345513 (6th Cir, 2008), in which the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment granted on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim for insurance coverage was barred because the policy was properly rescinded due to misrepresentations made in the application for the policy.
Manier v MIC General Insurance Corporation, 281 Mich App 485 (2008), first appellate case in Michigan that enforced a household exclusion in an automobile liability policy that limited liability coverage for any claim by the insured or any family member to the Michigan Financial Responsibility Law limits of $20,000/$40,000.
Links and Resources Contact Us