The “notice” defense shifts back into focus after a recent Michigan Supreme Court ruling dismantled the “open and obvious” defense for premises liability claims.
Comments
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.
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.
The Michigan Supreme Court on Friday issued a landmark decision that abolishes the open and obvious defense for premises liability cases.
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.
Subscribe
RSSTopics
- Premises Liability
- Civil Litigation
- Property Liability
- Litigation Discovery
- Insurance
- Appellate Law
- Fire Claims
- Residential Liability
- General Liability
- insurance policy
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Commercial Liability
- Water Loss Claims
- Fraud Activity
- Retail Liability
- Investigations
- Governmental Immunity
- Contractor Liability
- Marine Liability
- Maritime Law
- Artificial Intelligence
- Commercial Real Estate
- Open & Obvious Doctrine
- Design Defect
- Snow & Ice Claims
- Industrial Liability
- Lost Earnings
- Video Recording
- Defamation
- Open & Obvious
- Risk Management
- Professional Liability
- Liquor Liability
- Business Risk Management
- Negligence
- Independent Medical Examinations (IME)
- Sports-liability
- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
- Auto Liability
- Bankruptcy
- Intoxication
- Judicial Estoppel
- No Fault Liability
- Trucking Liability
- Wrongful Death
- Real Estate
- FDA Regulations
- Food Law
- Foodservice & Hospitality
- Regulatory Law
- Constructive Notice
Recent Updates
- Post-Open and Obvious: What Property Owners Can Do to Protect Themselves
- Lessons in Civil Procedure and Civility from a Surprising Source: Barbie
- ‘Open and Obvious’ Falls, Restoring Focus on ‘Notice’ Defense in Michigan Premises Liability Cases
- Insurance Provider’s ‘Satisfaction’ Maketh the Proof of Loss
- The High Seas and High Risks of Lithium Batteries
- Uniform Trade Practices Act Requires Timely Payment of Property Claims
- Michigan Supreme Court Eliminates 'Open and Obvious' Defense in Premises Liability Cases
- Failure to Pay First-Party Property Claims Timely Can Prove Costly Under the Uniform Trade Practices Act
- Is Artificial Intelligence Jeopardizing the Attorney-Client Privilege in Your Case?
- Property Claims Professionals can Minimize Paying Penalty Interest by Doing This