SCR is a premier property and liability program for K-12 public school districts across southern California, and CMDA is proud to serve on their Attorney Panel.

Seminar topics included an overview of the challenging insurance marketplace and relevant trends; a discussion on how professionals are best incorporating the use of artificial intelligence into their daily workload and important risk management methods to implement to mitigate potential exposure using these platforms; and a summary of the key components of the Governor’s 2026-27 State Budget proposal.

Mr. Ferris enjoyed attending the conference and networking with SCR members while sharing insight and strategies on navigating liability issues impacting public school districts.

Daniel W. Ferris is a partner in our Riverside office where he focuses his practice on public entity defense, insurance defense, civil litigation, and education law. He manages cases from inception through trial, including preparing pleadings, motions, and briefs, managing discovery, taking and defending depositions, and handling court appearances, mediations, arbitrations, and trials. Additionally, he writes briefs for submission to all levels of state and federal courts and performs legal research and writing for all areas of law handled by the Firm. He may be reached at (951) 276-4420 or dferris@cmda-law.com.

Shane Nolan, a partner in our Livonia office, recently obtained summary disposition in a premises liability case on behalf of a southeast Michigan township.

The case involved the “sidewalk exception” to governmental immunity. The case arose from a trip and fall on a public sidewalk, where the Plaintiff alleged that the township did not properly maintain their sidewalk and sought damages for injuries sustained from her fall. Mr. Nolan moved quickly, asserting governmental immunity and demonstrating that Plaintiff could not satisfy the statutory exception. He irrefutably proved the township exercised due care and lacked fault, leading to a favorable judgment and dismissal of the claims against his client.

After oral argument, the judge granted the Firm’s motion for Summary Disposition on the premises liability claim, protecting our client from additional expenses and preventing unnecessary further litigation. This case reinforces the protections available to our municipal clients under Michigan law. It serves as a reminder that exceptions to governmental immunity are narrow, and plaintiffs must satisfy specific legal standards to proceed against municipalities in premises liability actions.

Shane Nolan is a partner in the Firm’s Livonia office where he focuses his practice on the defense of liability lawsuits on behalf of insurance companies, self-insured corporations, businesses, and municipal entities in a wide variety of civil litigation, as well as premises liability, general liability, and insurance coverage disputes. He also focuses his practice on municipal law and utility law. He has successfully argued dispositive motions, tried multiple cases to verdict, and regularly represents clients in various alternative dispute resolution forums. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or snolan@cmda-law.com.

The claim involved a visitor to Traverse City, who slipped and fell on ice in the condominium association’s parking lot. The association had relied upon a snow removal contractor to address the accumulation of snow and ice in the parking lot. While the contractor’s efforts greatly improved the condition of the parking lot, it did not get every patch of snow and ice. Prior to his fall, the plaintiff acknowledged being aware that it was icy and snowy, and in the seconds before his fall, his wife warned him to be careful of the ice in the parking lot.

Plaintiff claimed the status of an invitee, but attorneys Grant and Cross argued that, as to the association, plaintiff was actually a licensee and as a licensee the association only owed plaintiff the duty to warn him of unreasonably dangerous conditions of which the association was aware and of which the plaintiff was unaware. Attorneys Grant and Cross argued that snow and ice in Northern Michigan in the winter is not an unreasonably dangerous condition and because the plaintiff knew or should have known of snow and ice in the parking lot, they did not owe him any duty to warn of snow and ice.

Plaintiff, who suffered a broken arm because of his fall, demanded settlement in the amount of $300,000. However, the circuit court granted Attorneys Grant and Cross’ motion for summary disposition, dismissing the claims in their entirety.

Matthew Cross is a partner in the Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, zoning and land use, law enforcement defense and litigation, insurance defense, and general litigation. He has experience handling employment law, personal injury defense, marijuana licensing litigation, civil rights litigation, constitutional litigation, and other municipal issues. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or mcross@cmda-law.com.

Gregory Grant is a partner in our Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, employment and labor law, insurance defense, and litigation. He has extensive litigation experience in the areas of employment and labor law, police liability, first amendment law, due process, Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and has earned dismissals in each of these areas. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or ggrant@cmda-law.com.

Mr. Grant filed a motion for summary disposition arguing that ordinary negligence was not the correct standard. He asserted that dancing is a “recreational activity” that is subject to the higher reckless misconduct standard under Ritchie-Gamester v City of Berkley. Under Ritchie, the Michigan Supreme Court, stated “[w]hen people engage in a recreational activity, they have voluntarily subjected themselves to certain risks inherent in that activity. When one of those risks results in injury, the participant has no ground for complaint.”

Gregory Grant is a partner in The Firm’s Traverse City office where he focuses his practice on municipal law, employment and labor law, insurance defense, and litigation. He has extensive litigation experience in the areas of employment and labor law, police liability, first amendment law, due process, Open Meetings Act (OMA) and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and has earned dismissals in each of these areas. He may be reached in our Traverse City office at (231) 922-1888 or ggrant@cmda-law.com.

Chris Schultz, managing partner, explains, “Carol maintains excellent client relations and is an exceptional mentor to our newer associates and law clerks. Further, she has made significant contributions to the overall Firm by participating in On-Campus Interviews and other community events. Lastly, she is dedicated to providing outstanding legal services to our clients. We welcome her to the Firm’s partnership.”

Ms. Smith focuses her practice on insurance defense matters. She has considerable litigation and trial experience representing clients in third-party auto claims, as well as first-party no-fault and uninsured motorist claims. Additionally, she advises clients on numerous areas of law, including insurance coverage, general liability, personal injury protection (PIP) and bodily injury claims.

She is a member of the State Bar of Michigan, Oakland County Bar Association, Defense Research Institute, and Michigan Defense Trial Counsel. Ms. Smith earned a Bachelor of Arts degree from Oakland University and a Juris Doctor degree, cum laude, from Thomas M. Cooley Law School. She has been named a Rising Star- Top Rated PI General Defense Attorney by Michigan Super Lawyers since 2022. In February 2024 she was selected to Michigan Lawyers Weekly’s Class of 2024 Up & Coming Lawyers.

She may be reached in our Livonia office as (734) 261-2400 or csmith@cmda-law.com.

In this case, a car dealership customer was involved in an accident while driving a loaner vehicle owned and provided by the defendant dealership while it repaired the customer’s vehicle. The plaintiff, who also sued the customer as the driver of the loaner vehicle, sued the dealership based on Michigan’s Ownership Liability Act, MCL 257.401, which generally provides that the owner of a motor vehicle, including a person engaged in the business of leasing motor vehicles for a period of 30 days or less, is liable for an injury caused by the negligent operation of the leased vehicle.

We immediately moved for summary disposition based on federal preemption, arising from the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. sec. 30106(a), to the Federal Transportation Equity Act, which provides, in pertinent part, that:

An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases a vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall not be liable under the law of any State or political subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the vehicle (or an affiliate of the owner), for harm to persons or property…

The stated exceptions in the Act, negligence or criminal wrongdoing on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the owner), were inapplicable to the facts of our case.

The doctrine of federal preemption provides that, in a conflict between state and federal law, state law must yield under the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2.  Federal law preempts state law in three circumstances: where Congress has expressed an intent to preempt state law, where state law regulates conduct in a field that Congress intended to occupy exclusively, and where state law actually conflicts with federal law. Wayne Co. Bd. of Comm’rs v. Wayne Co. Airport Authority, 253 Mich. App. 144, 197-198, 658 N.W.2d 804 (2002).  We argued that, while only one of the foregoing factors is necessary for preemption, our case satisfied all three factors.  At the time of the passage of the law, House Representative Graves stated that the purpose of the amendment was to “to correct an inequity in the car and truck renting and leasing industry . . . [and to] lower costs and increase choices for all consumers.” 151 Cong. Rec. H1200 (daily ed. Mar. 9, 2005). See also, Susan Lorde Martin, Commerce Clause Jurisprudence and the Graves Amendment: Implications for the Vicarious Liability of Car Leasing Companies, 18 U. Fla. J.L. & Pub. Pol’y 153, 164 (2007).

In response to our motion, the plaintiff argued that the Graves Amendment was inapplicable to our case since it involved a loaner vehicle for which there was no consideration, rather than a rented or leased vehicle.  Relying on federal case precedent, we successfully replied that this was a distinction without a difference, citing Thayer v. Randy Marion Chevrolet Buick Cadillac, LLC, 519 F. Supp. 3d 1062, 1068, (M.D. Fla. 2021), which holds that the Graves Amendment does apply to a loaner vehicle.  In Thayer, the Court rationalized that a loaner vehicle supplied by a dealership is supported by consideration since the customer receives the loaned vehicle in exchange for the dealership repairing the customer’s vehicle.

Our trial court agreed that the Graves Amendment does apply to a car dealership loaner vehicle situation, rejecting the plaintiff’s attempt to rely on various conflicting state cases and recognizing that Michigan courts must apply federal precedent to interpret a federal law.

We were able to have this case dismissed early on in litigation, avoiding the need to incur the cost of discovery.

Joel Ashton is a partner in the Livonia office of Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC where he focuses his practice on community association law, insurance defense, including Michigan No-Fault claims (PIP, automobile negligence, uninsured/ underinsured motorist), as well as premises liability and general negligence. His practice also includes the defense of contract and liability claims, contract interpretation issues, subrogation claims involving automobile, fire and casualty, commercial and related coverage. Mr. Ashton maintains an AV Preeminent Rating from Martindale -Hubbell, which is the highest possible rating an attorney can achieve for both ethical standards and legal ability. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or jashton@cmda-law.com.

Stanley I. Okoli is an attorney in in the Livonia office of Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho, PLC where he focuses his practice on research and writing, as well as litigation. He writes briefs for submission to all levels of state and federal courts, argues cases in both the state and federal courts of appeals, and performs research for all areas of law handled by our Firm. Mr. Okoli has taken over 30 cases to Michigan Court of Appeals and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and has handled 14 jury trials. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or sokoli@cmda-law.com.

The lawsuit was filed by a family physician from Chicago, who was visiting the Silver Lake State Park in west Michigan when he rented a Jeep Wrangler from Carol’s client to drive on the sand dunes.  Following a one-hour guided tour by the client through the dunes, the plaintiff crested a steep dune at a high rate of speed, causing the vehicle to become airborne and roll.  He blamed the accident on negligent instruction by the tour guide to give the vehicle full throttle while climbing the hills, as well as the lack of warning that this particular hill had become peaked.  He suffered several fractures of his cervical and thoracic spine, requiring two surgical fusions to repair, and claimed that he would never return to work as a doctor.

Carol argued that the accident was caused by his own negligent operation of the vehicle and that he had assumed the risk of such a potentially-dangerous activity.  After seven hours of deliberating, the Jury found heavy comparative negligence by the plaintiff, which prohibited any award of non-economic (pain and suffering) damages.  He was awarded past wage loss, which was reduced by the significant percentage of negligence the Jury attributed to him and then completely offset by the disability benefits he has received.  The plaintiff attorneys asked the Jury for $20 million.  The lowest settlement demand received was $2 million.  Congratulations to Carol and her clients!

Carol Smith is an attorney in our Livonia office where she focuses her practice on insurance defense matters. She has considerable litigation and trial experience representing clients in third-party auto claims, as well as first-party no-fault and uninsured motorist claims. Additionally, she advises clients on numerous areas of law, including insurance coverage, general liability, personal injury protection (PIP) and bodily injury claims. She may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or csmith@cmda-law.com.

Judge Meinecke (44th District Court – Royal Oak) granted Motion to Dismiss a case filed by an MRI facility based on repeated discovery violations in a case handled by CMDA attorney Jonathan Brown. In granting the Motion, the Court dismissed the facility’s entire action, with prejudice, just weeks prior to the scheduled start of trial. The main dispute in this matter was allegedly unpaid medical expenses related to MRI scans pursued by the MRI facility.

As part of discovery, Mr. Brown requested the facility produce the MRI films for the subject scans at issue. Despite multiple requests, the facility failed to produce the requested  films for nearly 12-months after the initial requests.  Eventually, Mr. Brown filed a Motion to Compel production of the MRI films which was granted by the Court.  In time, the facility violated the Court’s Order by failing to produce the requested MRI films within the prescribed timeframe.

Upon the facility’s violation of the Court’s Order, Mr. Brown filed a Motion to Dismiss the facility’s claim, with prejudice.  The Motion was based not only on the facility’s violation of the Order, but also in the fact that it had continuously refused to produce crucial and material evidence critical to a proper defense.  Mr. Brown illustrated the extensive efforts made to obtain the films all of which were rebuffed or ignored by the facility.  Ultimately, the Court agreed that the films were indeed crucial evidence in this matter and that the facility was given ample opportunity to remedy the issue and produce the films.  Finding no lesser sanction was appropriate, the Court dismissed the facility’s entire action, with prejudice.

The dismissal of the facility’s action came just weeks prior to the scheduled jury trial.  In practice, the dismissal saved the client extensive and needless legal spend related to trial preparation in a matter where the facility was actively refusing to provide critical evidence.

Jonathan D. Brown is an attorney in our Livonia office where he focuses his practice on insurance defense matters, including first-party no-fault, third-party auto negligence, and insurance fraud. Mr. Brown has achieved several successful outcomes for his clients in a variety of complex matters and understands the importance of extensive preparation and knowledge of each case and its unique components. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 of jbrown@cmda-law.com.

Judge Allen (Wayne County) granted motion for reconsideration after initially denying a Motion for summary disposition in a case for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits filed by a medical facility in a case handled by CMDA attorney Jonathan Brown. In granting the motion for reconsideration, Judge Allen reversed its prior denial of the Motion and dismissed the matter with prejudice.

In this case, the underlying claim of the patient was resolved in early 2019 and included a waiver of all future benefits. After resolution of the patient’s underlying claim, a medical facility filed a separate action on behalf of the patient. The issue was whether the facility had advised the insurer of its potential interests prior to resolution of the patients claim. Based on the lack of notice and derivative nature of the patient’s claim, Mr. Brown filed a Motion for summary disposition in lieu of an Answer to the facility’s Complaint. The motion argued that since the facility did not advise the insurer of its potential interests in the patient’s claim prior to the resolution the patient’s claim, its alleged expenses were enveloped in the prior release and the facility was not entitled to recovery of the patient’s medical expenses.

Judge Allen initially denied the Motion and ruled the insurer was provided notice of the facility’s interests prior resolving the underlying patient’s claim. However, it was readily apparent that the Court misidentified documents attached to the Motion from the facility’s ledger, as documents from the insurer’s database. Accordingly, Mr. Brown filed a Motion for reconsideration addressing the error and asking the Court to reconsider its denial of the Motion. On reconsideration, the Court acknowledged the misidentification of documents attached to the Motion, reversed its own ruling, and dismissed the case of the medical facility with prejudice.

The dismissal of this case eliminated needless legal spend for the client in a case where the facility was very obviously precluded from recovery. 

Jonathan D. Brown is an attorney in our Livonia office where he focuses his practice on insurance defense matters, including first-party no-fault, third-party auto negligence, and insurance fraud. Mr. Brown has achieved several successful outcomes for his clients in a variety of complex matters and understands the importance of extensive preparation and knowledge of each case and its unique components. He may be reached at (734) 261-2400 of jbrown@cmda-law.com.

Numerous individuals reported injuries, including several broken bones and concussions, as well as a chaperone who suffered burst-type fractures of her thoracic spine and underwent a 6-level spinal fusion.  The driver of the bus tested positive for THC after the accident. Ordinary negligence by the driver has been admitted, as well as vicarious and owner liability by the motor coach company.

In a prelude to motioning the court to throw the THC out of evidence, Carol filed a motion for partial summary disposition on the plaintiffs’ claims of gross negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring/training/retention.  Judge Geddis ruled in favor of the defense, granted the motion for partial summary disposition in its entirety, and dismissed all requested causes of action.  All that remains is a simple, admitted negligence case in which the THC has no relevance.

Carol Smith is an attorney in our Livonia office where she focuses her practice on insurance defense matters. She has considerable litigation and trial experience representing clients in third-party auto claims, as well as first-party no-fault and uninsured motorist claims. Additionally, she advises clients on numerous areas of law, including insurance coverage, general liability, personal injury protection (PIP) and bodily injury claims. She may be reached at (734) 261-2400 or csmith@cmda-law.com.