Skip to main content
A Better Partnership

May 2017

May 2017
May 24, 2017

MSC grants MOAA to consider when the 90-day limitations period under the Whistleblowers Protection Act is triggered

The Michigan Supreme Court granted mini-oral argument in Millar v. Construction Code Authority, No. 154437, to address whether a claim under the Whistleblowers Protection Act (“WPA”) accrues when a plaintiff is informed of his or her termination or when the decision is made to terminate the plaintiff.  

May 2017
May 22, 2017

COA: Businesses that peripherally participate in auto maintenance and repair are not excluded from coverage under the No Fault Act

The Michigan Insurance Code excludes no-fault insurance liability for property damage only where the damage occurs at a business whose primary purpose is to provide maintenance and repair services for motor vehicles, said the Michigan Court of Appeals in Hastings Mutual Insurance Company v. Grange Insurance Company, No. 333193. The exclusion does not apply to a business that has primary purpose doing something else and only peripherally participates in vehicle repair and maintenance. 
In this case, although a farm barn was regularly used to provide repairs and maintenance to the farm’s vehicles as well as the vehicles of the family members, it did not change the primary purpose of the business from farming to vehicle repair business.

May 2017
May 19, 2017

COA: Unrefined - but unambiguous - contract terms do not create a ripe judicial controversy

A plaintiff’s misunderstanding of unambiguous contractual terms, which may lack technical refinement, is not sufficient to create a controversy between contracting parties, said the court of appeals in Van Buren Charter Township v. Visteon Corporation, No. 331789.  In this case, the parties' contract clearly stated that there were two conditions that must be met before the defendant was obligated to perform. The court further stated that even though a contract may not be “particularly strong, or overly beneficial to [a] plaintiff,” courts do not have the authority to “modify unambiguous contracts or rebalance the contractual equities struck by contracting parties.”  As defendant had not yet breached its conditional performance obligation, the Court found that (1) it was proper for the trial court to decline to issue a declaratory judgment regarding the parties' rights under the contract; (2) plaintiff may not recover in contract law for possible future harm and hypothetical damages; and (3) plaintiff's claim for anticipatory repudiation of the contract cannot be sustained without sufficient evidence of defendant's unequivocal declaration of an intent not to perform.

Displaying results 7-12 (of 26)
 |<  <  1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5  >  >| 

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.



+ -