An insurer was not entitled to a new trial based on unpreserved references to a third party’s drunkenness because the verdict was supported by the evidence and any prejudice was cured by jury instructions. The trial court also properly awarded no-fault attorney fees under MCL 500.3148(1), as the insurer’s prior acknowledgment of the injury made its denial unreasonable, and a later record review could not create factual uncertainty retroactively.

In this no-fault insurance case, the Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ denial of personal injury protection (PIP) benefits to the injured plaintiff, finding the appeals court misinterpreted the applicable no-fault statute and wrongly extended dicta from case precedent.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the probate court acted within its discretion when it determined that the appellant’s litigation did not enhance, preserve, or protect trust property, provisions that MCL 700.7904(1) requires before awarding fees from the trust.

Defendants who have different potential liabilities lack the “substantial identity of interests” as required for a finding of privity in an analysis of whether res judicata applies to a subsequent claim.

The Court of Appeals reversed the Trial Court’s grant of summary disposition because Michigan law recognizes a critical exception for loading or uploading in its definition of parking, and thus Plaintiff’s conduct fits within that exception, and because comparative negligence is a question for the jury.

In an unanimous opinion, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that there is no clear evidence that the Legislature intended the Lawful Internet Gaming Act (LIGA) to eliminate common-law claims such as fraud, conversion, and breach of contract arising from a gambling dispute between a patron and an online gaming licensee.

Trial Court erred in terminating mother’s parental rights to her six children. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

The city of Detroit was not entitled to summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity after the Court determined that a metal stub protruding out of a paved sidewalk constituted a “sidewalk defect” and created “a dangerous condition”. . The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and remanded to the trial court.

This custody and parenting-time case must be remanded because the trial court once again committed various errors in making its decisions.

The trial court properly granted the defendant’s motion to terminate a personal protection order issued against him.

The trial court in this high-asset divorce action properly declined to enforce the charging liens that had been filed by the plaintiff’s attorneys.

The trial court erred in failing to grant partial summary disposition on the issue of the 2019 amendments to the No-Fault Act, the Court of Appeals reversed.

The trial court’s amended order didn’t correct the clerical error under MCR 2.612(A)(1) because the correction “substantially changed” the initial order.

Clear and convincing evidence existed to terminate the mother’s parental rights in this case and doing so was in the child’s best interest.

The trial court erred in granting the respondent a directed verdict during a child protective proceeding bench trial because the court rules limit directed verdicts to jury trials

The trial court improperly interpreted the terms of the parties’ agreement and, as a result, the plaintiff’s malpractice suit was improperly dismissed, the Michigan COA has ruled.

The order from which the respondent appealed in this termination of parental rights case was not a “final order” pursuant to the court rules, a Michigan Court of Appeals majority has decided.

Trial court didn’t comply with the statutory requirements for denying an ex parte PPO by “merely concluding” that the allegations were “insufficient” for relief, the Michigan COA has ruled.