Recent Results

A-M Law shareholder Joseph S. Mierzejewski recently completed a four day Trial in Lapeer County Circuit Court, winning a judgment of No Cause for Action. Plaintiff, his wife, and his granddaughter were occupying Plaintiff's truck when they were struck in the rear by Defendant's insured, traveling to 80-100 mph. Both vehicles were totaled. Plaintiff claimed to have sustained a serious impairment of a body function resulting in fusion surgery to his sacroiliac joint, left shoulder rotator cuff surgery, and right knee surgery. Liability was admitted. The case was tried on the issues of causation and serious impairment. Plaintiff presented three expert witnesses, a neurosurgeon, an orthopedic surgeon, and a pain management specialist. The defense called an orthopedic surgeon expert witness. Mr. Mierzejewski's cross-examination of Plaintiff, relying on voluminous records, was effective in raising significant questions regarding Plaintiff's credibility. In closing argument, it was argued that, although negligence was admitted, Plaintiff's injuries were limited to soft tissue sprains and strains, and the surgeries were not due to injuries that arose out of the accident.

After 35 minutes of deliberations, the jury returned a verdict finding that Defendant was negligent, the negligence caused injuries to Plaintiff, the injuries were proximately caused by Defendant, but Plaintiff's injuries did not rise to the level of a serious impairment of a body function.

A-M Law shareholder Mark D. Sowle obtained a verdict of No Cause of Action in a Wayne County case which was defended on the basis of insurance fraud. Plaintiff claimed first party no-fault benefits against Farm Bureau Insurance. Mr. Sowle won the case by introducing evidence that the MRIs Plaintiff relied upon were fraudulent, and that Plaintiff's medical treatment was orchestrated by his attorneys. The verdict resulted in case evaluation sanctions against Plaintiff in excess of $35,000.

A-M Law shareholder Mark D. Sowle obtained a verdict of No Cause of Action in Oakland County which was defended on the basis of insurance fraud. Plaintiff claimed first party no-fault benefits and underinsured benefits against Farm Bureau Insurance. Plaintiff had undergone an L5-S1 fusion which he asserted arose out of a motor vehicle accident. Mr. Sowle won the case by demonstrating that the surgery was the result of Plaintiff's recruitment into a treatment ring facilitated by his attorneys, and was determined not to be reasonable or necessary to his care and recovery. Mr. Sowle also proved to the jury that Plaintiff had submitted more than 80 days of fraudulent attendant care claims. The verdict resulted in case evaluation sanctions against Plaintiff in excess of $45,000.

A-M Law shareholder Michael D. Phillips obtained a verdict of No Cause of Action on behalf of the Michigan Auto Insurance Placement Facility in a first party no-fault action. At Trial, Plaintiff presented claims for medical expenses, replacement services, and wage loss benefits. However, the jury agreed with the MAIPF and found that Plaintiff was disqualified from receiving benefits for the reason that, at the time of the accident, Plaintiff was driving his girlfriend's uninsured vehicle without first obtaining permission, and as a result was in violation of Michigan's anti-joyriding statutes. The Trial lasted four days; and followed a ruling from the Court finding a question of fact on the issue of unlawful taking.

A-M Law attorney Mark L. Nawrocki obtained a verdict of No Cause of Action in a Macomb County Circuit Court jury trial. The matter was defended on the basis of a fraudulent claim. Plaintiff claimed injury to his neck, lower back, shoulder, and bicep. Plaintiff underwent physical therapy from February until May 2015 and then again from March 2016 until May 2016. Mr. Nawrocki won the case by arguing multiple fraudulent submissions to the insurer, including Plaintiff receiving social security disability benefits while making a wage loss claim of $50,000 to $60,000 a year by selling Rottweilers. Proofs showed Plaintiff was selling Rottweilers after the accident. Additionally, Mr. Nawrocki demonstrated to the jury, 21 other instances of fraud. The jury deliberated for 12 minutes before unanimously concluding that Plaintiff's claim was fraudulent and a No Cause of Action verdict was entered. The verdict resulted in case evaluation sanctions and attorney fees pursuant to MCL 500.3148(2).

A-M Law attorney Marcy E. Mierzejewski prevailed on a Motion for Summary Disposition on behalf of the MAIPF based upon the Notice Provision. Plaintiff filed the suit on the one year anniversary of the accident, but failed to serve the Complaint until after one year had elapsed. Since no other notice or documentation was provided within one year, Plaintiff's cause of action was dismissed.

A-M Law attorney Marcy E. Mierzejewski prevailed on a Motion for Summary Disposition on behalf of an assigned servicing insurer on a priority dispute between a commercial carrier and personal insurer. Claimant was occupying a transportation vehicle, although there was a dispute as to which transportation vehicle was involved. The personal insurer alleged that its insured vehicle was not involved in the accident and, therefore, they were not within the order of priorities. The commercial carrier defended on the grounds that the vehicle identified on the police report was not listed on the policy of insurance. The Court dismissed the MAIPF with prejudice, as there was identifiable, higher priority coverage.

A-M Law attorney Marcy E. Mierzejewski prevailed on a Motion for Summary Disposition on behalf of the MAIPF. The vehicle involved was being used as a transportation vehicle at the time of the accident. Co-Defendant (the commercial carrier) insured the fleet of vehicles, but not the involved vehicle. The other Co-Defendant provided a personal policy on the vehicle allegedly involved. The Court dismissed the MAIPF on the basis that there was not a "priority dispute" between two insurers, but a dispute regarding which vehicle was involved to trigger the appropriate policy, finding that there was identifiable, higher priority coverage on the involved vehicle.

Past Results