Skip to Content

Profile

Christopher Messing has experience litigating matters in both state and federal courts in cases involving general tort liability, premises liability, property damage, first-party auto, and third-party auto. This representation has resulted in dispositive relief and favorable settlements for his clients. Chris prides himself on being personable and always making himself available to his clients.

Outside of his practice, Chris enjoys playing hockey and is a devoted fan of the Detroit Red Wings. You may also frequently find him in attendance at Detroit Lions home games. He likes to travel and is always open to trying new foods.

Areas of Practice

  • No-Fault, First and Third-Party Motor Vehicle Liability
  • Premises Liability
  • Property Damage
  • Product Liability
  • Contract Disputes
  • Trial Practice

Education

  • Michigan State University College of Law
    J.D., magna cum laude, 2014
  • Oakland University
    B.A., Spanish Language and Literature, cum laude, 2010

Bar Admissions

  • State Bar of Michigan (2014)
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (2015)
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan (2016)
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (2019)

Employment

  • Harvey Kruse, P.C. (2014—present)
  • Intern, Michigan Court of Appeals, Lansing, Michigan (Summer 2013)
  • Compliance Intern, University of Michigan Health System (Summer 2012)

Organizations

  • Michigan Defense Trial Counsel Association – member

Honors & Awards

  • Jurisprudence Award in Advocacy – Michigan State University College of Law
  • Jurisprudence Award in Constitutional Law II – Michigan State University College of Law
  • Jurisprudence Award in Securities Regulation – Michigan State University College of Law

Representative Matters

  • In Crutcher v. Chapman, Wayne County Circuit Court, the plaintiff alleged neurological injuries following a motor vehicle accident in which she was a passenger in a vehicle that was struck by a vehicle that ran a stop sign. We obtained summary disposition in Wayne County Circuit Court by demonstrating that the plaintiff was unable to meet her burden of proof under the closed-head injury exception found in MCL 500.3135(2)(a)(ii). The plaintiff was diagnosed with occipital notch tenderness, facial paresthesia, and trigeminal neuritis following the accident. We demonstrated that Plaintiff’s physicians were unable to attribute Plaintiff’s neurological issues to the accident.
  • In Crutcher v. Chapman, Michigan Court of Appeals, the plaintiff appealed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of our client. The plaintiff argued that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the plaintiff’s trigeminal neuritis and other neurological issues could be causally related to the subject motor vehicle accident. We demonstrated to the Court of Appeals that the trial court reached the correct result. The Court of Appeals also agreed with our arguments that the plaintiff’s physical complaints could not be objectively diagnosed or relatable to the accident.
  • In Hurley Medical Center v. Auto-Owners Insurance Company, 52-4 District Court, the plaintiff sought no-fault personal protection insurance benefits on behalf of its patient for medical treatment provided as a result of injuries the patient sustained while attempting to connect a trailer to a parked vehicle. We obtained summary disposition by successfully arguing that the parked vehicle exception of MCL 500.3106 did not apply to the claimant who sustained a finger injury while hitching a trailer to a truck. We demonstrated to the court that hitching a trailer did not constitute loading/unloading of cargo because the trailer itself did not constitute “cargo.”
  • In Orthopedic PC v. Integon, 46th District Court, the plaintiff filed suit against the no-fault insurer as a medical provider of the allegedly injured party. The applicable insurance policy contained a provision that prohibited the assignment of rights under the policy. We obtained summary disposition by demonstrating that the plaintiff’s cause of action was precluded under the terms of the applicable insurance policy.
  • In Sanders v. English, et al., Oakland County Circuit Court, we obtained summary disposition by demonstrating that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff was unable to establish she had sustained threshold injuries under MCL 500.3135. The plaintiff had a pre-existing lumbar spine condition that required surgery prior to the subject accident. The plaintiff alleged an exacerbation of the lumbar spine condition, as well as a cervical spine injury from the accident. We successfully argued that all limitations on daily life complained of by the plaintiff existed prior to the motor vehicle accident, and thus the plaintiff’s general ability to lead her normal life was unchanged by the subject accident.
  • In Sanders v. English, et al., Michigan Court of Appeals, the plaintiff appealed the trial court’s order granting summary disposition to the defendants. We demonstrated to the Court of Appeals that no genuine issue of material fact existed and that the plaintiff’s claimed injuries could not be shown to have had a negative impact on her general ability to lead her normal, pre-accident lifestyle.
  • In Gaffney v. Roof-Rite, Oakland County Circuit Court, we obtained summary disposition of the plaintiff’s negligence claim in a roofing case under the economic loss doctrine. The plaintiff brought claims for breach of contract and negligence, alleging that the roofing work performed by the defendant resulted in mold in their house. We successfully argued that the negligence action pled by the plaintiff was precluded because any duty owed arose by contract, not common law.
  • In England v. Amerisure Insurance Company, we obtained summary disposition in a no-fault dispute on the basis of priority by successfully arguing that there was no insurance coverage. The co-defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, argued that coverage existed under a liability provision in the Amerisure insurance policy. The trial court agreed with our analysis that the provision relied upon by the co-defendant was not applicable in a PIP action.
  • In Gusmano v. Brownie’s Muffler Service, et al., Macomb County Circuit Court, the plaintiff was involved in a motor vehicle accident when his brakes allegedly failed due to a hole in the brake line. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had negligently installed the brakes on the subject vehicle, resulting in the failure of the brake lines. We argued to the trial court that there was no evidence supporting the plaintiff’s claim that changing brake pads resulted in a hole in the brake line. The trial court granted our motion for summary disposition, finding that the plaintiff had not presented sufficient evidence to support a causal connection between the brake work and the hole in the brake line.
  • In Gusmano v. Brownie’s Muffler Service, et al., Michigan Court of Appeals, the plaintiff appealed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition, and argued that the testimony of his expert that changing brake pads could result in a brake line hole created a genuine issue as to causation that should have been presented to a jury. We argued to the Court of Appeals that the testimony by the plaintiff’s expert was speculative and was insufficient to demonstrate any negligence by the brake technician in this case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary disposition in our favor.

News & Insights