Jump to Content
Home Search Email this Page RSS
Options
Main Menu
{Photo of Jeffrey Gerish'}

Jeffrey C. Gerish

Partner

  • Licensed Since: 1994
  • Joined Firm: 1994
  • Partner Since: 2003
38505 Woodward Ave.
Suite 100
Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
TEL: (248) 901-4031
FAX: (248) 901-4040
Areas of Practice
Honors & Awards
  • Best Lawyers in America® for Appellate Law (Copyright 2018 by Woodward/White, Inc., of Aiken, SC), 2014 - 2019
  • Leading Lawyer in Civil Appellate Law / Insurance, Insurance Coverage & Reinsurance Law, Leading Lawyers Magazine Michigan, 2015
  • Michigan Super Lawyer in Appellate, Michigan Super Lawyers, a Thomson Reuters publication, 2009 - 2011, 2013 - 2018
  • Top Lawyer in Appellate Law, dbusiness Magazine, 2017 - 2018
  • University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Associate Editor, 1992 - 1994
  • Campbell Moot Court Competition, Semifinalist, 1994
Education
  • University of Michigan Law School, J.D., 1994
  • University of Michigan, B.A., 1989
Bar & Court Admissions
  • Michigan, 1994
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, 1994
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1997
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2010
  • Indiana, 2013
  • Pro hac vice admissions include Iowa, Delaware, Wisconsin and Wyoming

A member of Plunkett Cooney’s Board of Directors, Jeffrey C. Gerish practices in the areas of appellate law, insurance coverage, commercial litigation and employment litigation.

Mr. Gerish is a member of Plunkett Cooney’s Appellate Law Practice Group, which is one of the only dedicated appellate practice groups in Michigan. His successful appellate representation has resulted in numerous published opinions in Michigan and Indiana, where he is also licensed and regularly practices, as well as in several federal appellate courts. He is also a member of the firm’s Insurance Coverage Practice Group.

Mr. Gerish received both his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Michigan, and he is a member of several professional organizations.

Notable Cases

  • Estate of Pfafman v. Lancaster, 67 N.E.3d 1150 (Ind.App., 2017) (reversing order granting new trial in significant electric shock case and reinstating verdict of no liability)
  • Stryker Corp. v. Nat. Union Fire Ins. Co., 842 F.3d 422 (6th Cir. 2016) (vacating $8.6 million judgment against excess insurer and remanding for entry of summary judgment in insurer’s favor in claim for coverage of underlying settlements entered into without insurer’s consent)
  • 2513-2515 S. Holt Rd. Holdings, LLC v. Holt Rd., LLC, 40 N.E.3d 859, 860 (Ind. Ct. App.), transfer granted, opinion vacated, 40 N.E.3d 857 (Ind. 2015), order vacated and transfer denied, 2513 S. Holt Rd. Holdings, LLC v. Holt Rd., LLC, 43 N.E.3d 1275 (Ind. 2015) (reversing summary judgment against, and ordering summary judgment in favor of, lender on claim that tax refund was part of collateral pledged to secure loan; footnote commending appellate counsel for effective advocacy)
  • Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Null, 304 Mich. App. 508 (2014) (reversing summary disposition against mortgagee, holding mortgagee was entitled to coverage under insurance policy issued to mortgagor for fire loss)
  • Travelers Cas. and Sur. Co. v Maplehurst Farms, Inc., 18 N.E.3d 311 (Ind.App., 2014) (reversing judgment against, and ordering summary judgment in favor of, Travelers, holding that trial court erred when it interpreted Maplehurst I to require Travelers to pay costs incurred as result of underlying settlement)
  • Chubb Custom Ins. Co. v Standard Fusee Corp., 2 N.E.3d 752 (Ind.App., 2014) (reversing trial court, holding that under Maryland law the total pollution exclusion precludes coverage for release of perchlorate and, therefore, Chubb's duty to defend and indemnify was not triggered; footnote commending counsel for excellent advocacy)
  • U.S. Fidelity and Guar. Co. v Warsaw Chemical Co., Inc., 990 N.E.2d 18 (Ind.App., 2013) (reversing trial court, holding that USF&G was entitled to summary judgment notwithstanding language in recitals supporting insured’s argument; footnote commending counsel for excellent advocacy)
  • Travelers Ins. Companies v Maplehurst Farms, Inc., 953 N.E.2d 1153 (Ind.App., 2011) (reversing summary judgment in favor of insured, extending Dreaded’s holding on pre-tender defense costs to indemnity payments; footnote commending counsel for excellent advocacy)
  • Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v Pella Corp., 650 F.3d 1161 (C.A.8, 2011) (in large exposure case, reversing lower court’s finding of duty to reimburse defense costs, holding that underlying class-action lawsuits alleging defective windows did not allege “occurrence”)
  • Sutton Funding, LLC v Jaworski, 945 N.E.2d 705, 710 (Ind.App., 2011) (reversing trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of lienholder in priority dispute, directing lienholder to release its mortgage to Sutton Funding, and entering summary judgment in Sutton Funding's favor)
  • National Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA v Standard Fusee Corp. 940 N.E.2nd 810, 817 (Ind., 2010) (reversing trial court's grant of summary judgment to insured and appellate court's decision, adopting uniform-contract-interpretation approach to choice-of-law disputes)
  • Dreaded, Inc. v St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 904 N.E.2d 1267 (Ind. 2009) (reversing Indiana Court of Appeals decision and holding that an insurer is not obligated to reimburse pre-notice defense costs regardless of whether prejudice to the insurer is caused by the delay in providing notice)
  • United States Fidelity Ins. & Guar. Co. v Michigan Catastrophic Claims Ass’n, 484 Mich. 1 (2009) (holding that the MCCA must reimburse 100 percent of settlement amounts regardless of reasonableness)
  • Citizens Ins. Co. v Pro-Seal Service Group, Inc, 477 Mich. 75 (2007) (reversing the Michigan Court of Appeals and holding that the insurer does not owe a duty to defend against trademark infringement claims where the policy limits coverage to trade dress infringement in the insured’s advertisement)
  • Washington Mut. Bank, FA v ShoreBank Corp., 267 Mich. App. 111 (2005) (holding that a refinance mortgagee was a mere volunteer in paying off mortgagor’s original mortgage, and, therefore, was not entitled to be subrogated to the original mortgage or to receive priority over intervening mortgages)
  • Gage Products Co. v Henkel Corp., 393 F.3d 629 (6th Cir. 2004) (reversing trial court’s grant of summary judgment and holding that a question of fact exists as to whether purchase orders with different price terms from offers resulted in formation of contract under UCC § 2207)
  • Gilliam v High-Temp Products, Inc., 260 Mich. App. 98 (2003) (reversing trial court’s denial of summary disposition and holding that claims against dissolving corporation were precluded by notice of dissolution; existence of insurance is not an asset allowing lawsuits to continue in the wake of dissolution)

Professional Affiliations

  • Oakland County Bar Association
  • State Bar of Michigan
  • Michigan Defense Trial Counsel
  • Defense Research Institute
  • American Bar Association

Articles and Lectures

  • “Faulty Workmanship: Current Status,” Lecture, Property Liability Resource Bureau 2016 Claims Conference, April 2016
  • “Current Status of Coverage for Faulty Workmanship,” Lecture, DRI Insurance Coverage Conference, March 2015
  • “Enforceable Contracts Without Agreement On Price,” Co-author, Michigan Bar Journal, June 2005
  • State Bar of Michigan Appellate Practice Section Newsletter, Editor, 1997-1999
  • “Abandoning Congressional Intent: Modern-Day Applications of the ADA,” Author, Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University Law Review 1997, Issue 3
  • “The Rape Shield Law and Sexual Harassment,” Co-author, Laches, Number 362, March 1996

Articles/Publications Links

Event Links

News Links

Full Site