Mr. Schultz joined Harvey Kruse, P.C. in 2018 as an associate attorney, following his admission to the Michigan Bar. He concentrates his practice on first-party and third-party automobile liability but has experience in a variety of civil defense fields including construction negligence, workers’ compensation defense, and premises liability.
Prior to joining Harvey Kruse, Jeff most recently worked at a healthcare provider defense firm. During his last semester of law school, he also worked with non-profits and social enterprises as a Student Attorney in Wayne Law’s Clinical Program.
Jeff is passionate about the law and getting the best results for the firm’s clients. His legal hero is Thurgood Marshall. When not practicing law, he enjoys music (especially Bob Dylan) and reruns of “Law and Order.”
Areas of Practice
- Appellate Practice
- Construction Liability
- Employment Law
- Insurance Defense
- No-Fault First Party Automobile Liability
- Transportation Litigation
- University of Michigan – Dearborn
B.A., with distinction, 2015
- Wayne State University Law School
J.D., cum laude, Order of the Coif, 2018
- State Bar of Michigan (2018)
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (2018)
- Associate at Harvey Kruse, P.C. (2018—Present)
Honors & Awards
- Order of The Coif, Wayne State University Law School
- Wayne State Law Review, Note and Comment Editor
- Anthony Johnson v. John Baker, et al., Wayne County Circuit Court (2020). Assisted in obtaining summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff had not suffered a threshold injury under the no-fault act, as the result of a pedestrian vs. motor vehicle accident. The Court found that the plaintiff could not show he had an impairment that someone other than himself would observe or perceive as impairing an important body function, and dismissed Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.
- Gerald Sutton, et al. v Wesco Insurance Company, et al., Wayne County Circuit Court (2020). Assisted in obtaining the dismissal of four intervening medical providers with claims of over $450,000. We argued that the intervening providers’ failure to file a complaint after being granted leave to do so meant that the intervention had been invalid. Further, we reasoned that pursuant to the no-fault act, any future attempts to recover the medical expenses were barred by the one-year back rule. The Court agreed and vacated the Order Granting Intervention, removing the four proposed Intervening Plaintiffs and their claims from the lawsuit.
- Autrice Warrior v. The Estate of Jean Wolford, et al., Genessee County Circuit Court (2019). Assisted in obtaining summary disposition on the basis that defendant driver was not covered under his mother’s insurance policy. Our arguments were based on policy language which excluded coverage where the driver did not have a “reasonable belief” they were entitled to use the insured vehicle. At time of litigation, both defendant driver and defendant owner, the driver’s mother, were deceased, and the motion depended upon admitting prior recorded statements for unavailable witnesses through hearsay exceptions in the Michigan Rules of Evidence. The Court held that our client had no duty to defend or indemnify the insureds in the litigation.
- Alfredo Garcia v. Atsalis Brothers Painting Co. and Z Contractors, Inc., Lapeer County Circuit Court (2019). Assisted in obtaining summary disposition as to both defendants. Plaintiff was seriously injured while leaving a construction worksite for lunch, and he sought to recover from both his direct employer and the general contractor of the project. We argued, and the Court agreed, that worker’s compensation was the plaintiff’s sole remedy against his employer, and that the general contractor was not liable under the common work area doctrine.
- Centria Home Rehabilitation v. Nationwide Insurance Company, Oakland County Circuit Court (2018). Obtained an order requiring medical provider to disclose information regarding the services it provided outside of the no-fault act. Attendant care agency maintained two separate entities: one providing services to individuals involved in auto accidents, and a second which served all other patients. The plaintiff argued that the practices of the separate entity were not relevant to the litigation; we argued that they were relevant to determining the provider’s “customary charges”. The Court agreed, compelling discovery on the issue.