The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Abdulla v Progressive Southeastern Insurance Company provides important guidance on who qualifies as an “owner” of a motor vehicle under Michigan's No-Fault Act. The plaintiff was injured while operating a commercial tractor titled to an LLC that he solel...
The Michigan Supreme Court's decision in Bowerman v Red Oak Management Co., Inc. provides important guidance on both contractor negligence and a landlord's statutory duty to maintain common areas. The plaintiff, an elderly tenant, was injured after stepping into an uncovered and unmarked trench ...
Michigan Court of Appeals reinforces the risk insurers face when denying no-fault benefits without a reasonable basis. In Zielinski v Auto-Owners Insurance Company (unpublished, May 2026), the Court affirmed a substantial attorney fee award under MCL 500.3148(1) after finding that the insurer un...
A recent published Michigan Court of Appeals opinion provides important guidance on the status of short-term rental guests in condominium common areas. In Litvin v The Village at Grand Traverse Commons Condominium Association, the Court held that an Airbnb guest injured in a condominium parking ...
In Jawad A. Shah, M.D., P.C. v Auto Club Insurance Association, the Court held that insurers may apply Medicare's Multiple-Procedure Payment Reduction (“MPPR”) methodology when calculating payable PIP benefits under MCL 500.3157. The dispute centered on whether the MPPR constituted a: “limitatio...
In Frankenmuth Ins. Co. v. L & KJ Enterprises, LLC, No. 366229 (Mich Ct App Nov 18, 2025), the Michigan Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal of an insurer's subrogation claim — but the real significance lies in what the Court did next. Although bound by the 1993 Pezzani decision, which interpre...
In Swanson v Bittersweet Ski Resort, Inc. (Mich. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2026), the Michigan Court of Appeals reaffirmed a critical principle of Michigan law: liability waivers may bar ordinary negligence claims, but they cannot bar claims for gross negligence. The case arose from a serious ski-lift ac...
In Bronson Healthcare Group, Inc. v Conifer Insurance Company (Feb. 2, 2026), the Michigan Court of Appeals issued an important published decision limiting when a medical provider may bring a private cause of action for double damages under the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA). The Court held ...
A basic principle of agency law is that the agent is a fiduciary to his or her principal, Stephenson v Golden, 279 Mich 710, 734-738 (1937), and owes duties of good faith, loyalty, and fair dealing, Burton v Burton, 332 Mich 326, 337 (1952). The relationship changes, however, in a dual agency si...
Basis of Fiduciary Relationships. There is no question that fiduciary relationships require a high duty of care, mainly because of the nature of the relationship and the manner by which the agency is created: “A fiduciary relationship arises from the reposing of faith, confidence, and trust and t...
Almost all recent litigation against real estate brokers and salespersons has involved some kind of claim related to the scope of the agency relationship. The dispute usually arises more from a misunderstanding as to what an agent can and cannot do for a client rather than from an actual error or...
The Michigan Supreme Court recently issued an opinion reinstating a principle of law that had been rejected more than 25 years ago because that idea (that courts should review contracts for reasonableness) undermined an“ancient and irrefutable” principle of contract law, namely that contracting p...
The Michigan Supreme Court has finally released its highly anticipated opinion reconsidering the “open and obvious doctrine” articulated more than 20 years ago in Lugo v. Ameritech Corp., 464 Mich. 512 (2001). In the split 5-2 opinion in the consolidated case of Kandil-Elsayed v. F&E Oil, Inc., ...
In Andary v. USAA, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that 2019 reforms to the No-Fault statute do not apply to claimants involved in accidents before cost control took effect. In a 5-2 decision, the majority of the Court held that the statute did not clearly state that cost controls were intended ...