COA says construction lien claimant may request attorney fees even when claim not fully adjudicated

In Ronnisch Construction Group Inc. v. Lofts on the Nine, L.L.C., No. 314195, the Court of Appeals held that a lien claimant under the Construction Lien Act may be entitled to recover attorney fees even when the lien claim is not fully adjudicated.  Further, a lien claimant may be entitled to attorney fees even though its related breach of contract claim is settled and the lienee reasonably disputes the amounts owed. Read More

COA explains how to allocate wage-loss benefits when a worker suffers multiple injuries and different insurers cover each injury

In Nichols v Howmet Corporation, No. 303783, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that liability for workers compensation wage-loss benefits should be allocated between two insurers when one injury (covered by one insurer) results in a partial disability and a later separate injury (covered by a different insurer) results in full disability.  This conclusion, the court explained, is consistent with disability principles of causation and reasonable employment principles. Read More

COA concludes that contractual exclusion in standard commercial general liability insurance policies only excludes the assumption of the liability of a third party

In Travelers Property Casualty Company of American v Peaker Services, Inc., No. 315070, the Court of Appeals addressed the scope of an exclusion found in a standard commercial general liability insurance policy.  This exclusion barred coverage for damages the insured must pay "by reason of the assumption of liability in a contract."  The insurance company argued that this exclusion applied to a claim against an insured for a breach of contract, resulting from machinery that had been improperly calibrated by the insured, causing property damage to a third party.  The insurer contended that, but virtue of the warranties that had allegedly been breached, the insured had contractually assumed its own liability and the exclusion applied.  The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the definition of "assumption" as well as the bulk of persuasive authority from other courts all weighed in favor of the conclusion that this exclusion is only triggered by the insured's assumption of the legal obligations or responsibilities of another party.  Thus, because the insured did not contractually assume the liabilities of another party, the exclusion did not apply.  Read More

MSC holds that there is no right to a jury trial in shareholder oppression cases

In Madugula v Taub, No 146298, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether there is a right to a jury trial for shareholder oppression claims brought under MCL 450.1489 (“§ 489”) of the Business Corporation Act. Ultimately, the court held that because a shareholder oppression claim is equitable in nature, there is no statutory or constitutional right to a jury trial.  Instead, it must be heard by a court of equity. Accordingly, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and the trial court’s judgment in favor of Madugula and remanded the case for further proceedings. Read More

MSC finds that the Michigan Business Tax Act did not repeal the Multistate Tax Compact

In International Business Machines Corp v Department of Treasury, No. 146440, the Michigan Supreme Court held that the Michigan Business Tax Act (the “BTA”), MCL 208.1101 et seq., did not repeal the Multistate Tax Compact (the “Compact”), MCL 205.581 et seq.  The Compact, enacted in 1970, was designed to facilitate equitable taxation of multi-state tax payers.  It provides a three-factor apportionment formula that taxpayers may use in place of Michigan’s other apportionment methods.  IBM applied the Compact’s apportionment method and claimed a $5,955,218 tax refund for 2008.  The Department of Treasury ruled that the BTA, enacted in 2008 (repealed in 2012), governed IBM’s income apportionment and allowed for only a $1,253,609 tax refund—a difference of $4.7 million.  The Court of Claims granted summary disposition to the Department and the Court of Appeals affirmed.   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.