This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and improve functionality. To learn more, you may view our Privacy Policy here. By continuing to browse this website, you are accepting our use of cookies in accordance with our privacy policy.

I Accept
Posts in Appellate Law.

The “notice” defense shifts back into focus after a recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling dismantled the “open and obvious” defense for premises liability claims.

CommentsComments Share: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email

Quickly determining “satisfactory proof of loss” for property claims can help insurance providers mitigate or even avoid paying penalty interest under Michigan’s Uniform Trade Practices Act.

CommentsComments Share: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email

Responding timely to “satisfactory proof of loss” notices can help insurers limit or even avoid paying penalty interest under Michigan’s Uniform Trade Practices Act.

CommentsComments Share: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email

The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday issued a landmark decision that abolishes the open and obvious defense for premises liability cases. 

CommentsComments Share: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email

In a published decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a dog is a “condition on the land” under premises liability, and as such, can be defended by the open and obvious danger doctrine.

CommentsComments Share: Twitter Facebook LinkedIn Email

Topics

Recent Updates

Plunkett Cooney Blogs