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.
Topics
- Property Liability
- Premises Liability
- Civil Litigation
- Negligence
- Damages Recovery
- Retail Liability
- Litigation Discovery
- Contractor Liability
- Insurance
- Residential Liability
- Appellate Law
- Fire Claims
- Construction Contractors
- Construction Law
- General Liability
- Personal Injury
- Commercial Liability
- Motor Vehicle Liability
- Water Loss Claims
- Commercial Real Estate
- Contracts
- insurance policy
- Fraud Activity
- Investigations
- Open & Obvious Doctrine
- Snow & Ice Claims
- Governmental Immunity
- Traumatic Brain Injury
- Marine Liability
- Maritime Law
- Open & Obvious
- Risk Management
- Artificial Intelligence
- Design Defect
- Industrial Liability
- Lost Earnings
- Business Risk Management
- Defamation
- Video Recording
- Liquor Liability
- Professional Liability
- 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
- What damages are recoverable in Michigan when property is negligently damaged or destroyed?
- Businesses can Bolster Lack of Notice Defense by Documenting Premises Inspections
- Avoiding the Premises Liability Trap of ‘Lost’ Evidence
- Appellate Court Faults Construction Company for Halting Work for Nonpayment in Breach of Agreed Upon Contract
- New Scope of Ohio Home Construction Suppliers Services Act Takes Effect
- The Skeptical Brain Injury – How Do You Prepare to Defend it?
- 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