Meriam has always had a passion for oral advocacy. During law school, she served as the Executive Director of the Moot Court program and was selected to compete in a number of local and national moot court competitions. She is also experienced in the appellate process. After her first year at Detroit Mercy Law school, Meriam interned for Justice Brian K. Zahra of the Supreme Court of Michigan. Upon graduating, she clerked for the Honorable Colleen A. O’Brien of the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Meriam joined Harvey Kruse in 2018 as an associate attorney concentrating her practice on first and third-party automobile insurance, and employment litigation. Meriam has also represented clients in general civil defense matters pertaining to commercial and tort litigation, including actions for breach of contract, construction defect, and product liability.
Meriam is a proud Chaldean-American. As a first-generation daughter of two Iraqi immigrants, Meriam recognized early on the importance of hard work, determination, and empathy. Her cultural background has also enabled her to become fluent in Arabic.
In her free time, Meriam enjoys attending football games (Michigan), running, watching history documentaries, singing karaoke, and practicing her golf swing.
Areas of Practice
- Appellate Law
- Civil Litigation
- Employment Law
- First- and Third-Party Automobile Liability
- Construction Accidents
- Premises and General Liability
- Transactional matters including negotiating, drafting, and reviewing contracts
- Wayne State University
B.A., cum laude, 2013
- University of Detroit Mercy School of Law
J.D., cum laude, 2016
- State Bar of Michigan (2016)
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (2019)
- United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan (2019)
- Associate at Harvey Kruse, P.C. (2018—present)
- Michigan Court of Appeals Law Clerk (2016—2018)
- Judicial Intern with Justice Brian K. Zahra, Michigan Supreme Court (2014)
- Michigan Association of Defense Trial Counsel
- Oakland County Bar Association
Honors & Awards
- Executive Director, Detroit Mercy Law Moot Court Board of Advocates (2015—2016)
- Student Attorney, Juvenile Appellate Clinic (2016)
- National Moot Court Team Member, National Veterans Law Moot Court Competition (2016)
- “The ‘Coming and Going’ Rule: Employer Liability for Negligent Acts of Traveling Employees”; reported in LACHES, the Official Publication of the Oakland County Bar Association, Number 640, (August 2021)
Kessia Lexima as guardian of Bertrand Lexima v. Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company, et al. (Wayne Co. Circuit Court, 2021) – Obtained summary disposition as to Plaintiff’s claim for no-fault benefits against defendant Pioneer on the basis that Pioneer was not the highest priority insurer for the subject pedestrian versus motor vehicle accident. The Court also agreed with our argument that, because the MACP was first in priority for payment of Plaintiff’s benefits, Pioneer was entitled to be reimbursed for all no-fault benefits it paid to or on behalf of Plaintiff.
VHS of Michigan, Inc. d/b/a Detroit Medical Center v. Pioneer State Mutual Insurance Company, et al. (Wayne Co. Circuit Court, 2021) – Obtained summary disposition as to provider suit filed against Pioneer on the basis that, under the priority rules of MCL 500.3114, Pioneer is not the highest priority insurer or even in the line of priority because Pioneer did not insure the claimant, the claimant’s resident relative, or the claimant’s spouse.
Trevino v Pulaski Civic Club (Wayne County Circuit Court, 2021) – Obtained summary disposition for Defendant in Plaintiff’s premises liability case based upon Plaintiff’s failure to establish evidence that Defendant had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition on Defendant’s property.
Ditmore v Major Cement Company (Wayne County Circuit Court, 2021) – summary disposition granted in employer liability/premises liability action where plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with an employee on the company’s premises. The Court granted summary disposition on the vicarious liability claim where we established that the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The Court granted summary disposition on the premises liability claim where we established that the plaintiff was not injured by any hazardous condition of the property itself and thus plaintiff could not plead a valid claim for premises liability.
- Six figure settlement obtained for client at the onset of litigation in an employment discrimination suit involving claims for violations of the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act and the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.
- Malone v Zhetman Brighton, LC, et. al. (Livingston Co. Circuit Court, 2020) – We obtained summary disposition on all three of Plaintiff claims against Defendant (claim for negligent hiring, negligent entrustment, and ordinary negligence based upon a theory of vicarious liability).
- Davis v Fore, et. al. (Oakland Co. Circuit Court, 2020) – Obtained summary disposition for Defendants in Plaintiffs’ automobile negligence and personal injury protection action on the basis that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show that Plaintiff’s alleged injuries were caused by the motor vehicle accident.
- Albain v Acuity Ins. Co., et. al. (Wayne Co. Circuit Court, 2020) – Obtained voluntary dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits after we filed counterclaims against Plaintiffs based upon misrepresentations made by Plaintiffs when reinstating previously lapsed insurance policy issued by Defendant insurance company.
- Estate of Halabicky v Lapeer County Medical Facility, et. al. (Lapeer Co. Circuit Court, 2019) – We obtained dismissal of Plaintiff’s claim for ordinary negligence, with the Court finding as a matter of law, that Plaintiff’s claim did not sound in ordinary negligence, but rather, sounded in medical malpractice.
- Livonia Care Pharmacy, Inc v Amerisure Insurance Company, (19th District Court, 2019) – We obtained summary disposition for Defendant on Plaintiff/provider suit for recovery of expenses incurred for medical services provided to underlying insured, with the court finding that the assignments by the provider were fraudulently procured and not authorized by the insured.