Business Journal highlights Supreme Court practice group at Warner Norcross & Judd

The Grand Rapids Business Journal writes in its most recent issue about the burgeoning U.S. and Michigan Supreme Court practices at Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, publisher of the One Court of Justice Blog. The article is available here. Read More

COA holds that negligent procurement or advice claims against insurance agents sound in negligence, not malpractice

In Stephens v. Worden Insurance Agency, No. 314700, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a claim for injury resulting from an insurance agent’s failure to procure the coverage requested by the insured is an ordinary negligence claim, not a professional malpractice claim. The court also held that such a claim accrues when the insurer denies the claim. Read More

COA: procedural flaw insufficient to set aside a foreclosue by advertisement absent prejudice

In Phillip J. Diem v. Sallie Mae Home Loans Inc., et al., No. 317499 the Michigan Court of Appeals held that to challenge a residential foreclosure by advertisement, the plaintiff must show that it was prejudiced by the defects in the foreclosure procedures. Read More

Detroit news endorses Zahra, Viviano, and Murphy for Michigan Supreme Court

In a lengthy editorial regarding the upcoming election for three seats on the Michigan Supreme Court, the Detroit News endorsed incumbents Justice Brian Zahra and David Viviano as well as Michigan Court of Appeals Chief Judge Bill Murphy. Read More

COA allows assigned-claims-insurer reimbursement even from a non-liable insurer

In the Consolidated case, Farm Bureau Ins. Co. v. American Guarantee and Liability Ins. Co., No. 312882, the COA held that assigned claims insurers are entitled to repayment for expenses incurred as a result of covering disputed or undisputed claimant benefits, even if the underlying insurer is not liable for the claim. Read More
Displaying results 1-5 (of 500)
 |<  < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10  >  >| 

NOTICE. Although we would like to hear from you, we cannot represent you until we know that doing so will not create a conflict of interest. Also, we cannot treat unsolicited information as confidential. Accordingly, please do not send us any information about any matter that may involve you until you receive a written statement from us that we represent you.

By clicking the ‘ACCEPT’ button, you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if you submitted it in a good faith effort to retain us, and even if you consider it confidential, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.

Please click the ‘ACCEPT’ button if you understand and accept the foregoing statement and wish to proceed.