Courtney A. Lavender

Representative Client Work

• Hendi v Frankenmuth — successfully drafted two motions for summary disposition where the plaintiff brought fraudulent claims for personal injury protection benefits and underinsured/uninsured motorist benefits for allegedly sustaining injuries in a motor vehicle accident, resulting in the plaintiff being barred from receiving benefits.
• Brown v City of Albion — briefed an appeal on constitutional issues in the Sixth Circuit that resulted in a published opinion in favor of the city of Albion.
• Moore v MemberSelect — briefed an appeal wherein we successfully defended a jury a verdict in MemberSelect’s favor regarding fraudulent claims for damages from a water loss.
• David Ashen v Jeffrey R. Holmstrom, et al — successfully briefed an appeal defending a trial court’s grant of summary disposition for retired Judge David DiStefano.
• Cooper-Keel v Fazio, et al — Successfully defeated the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal and grant of our client’s motion for summary disposition
• JV SBAM v General Casualty Company — successfully defended against a plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal wherein the plaintiff sought to overturn the trial court’s decision to set aside default
• Aseelah Dent, et al v Prime Eight Ten, LLC, et al — successfully drafted a motion for summary disposition regarding three plaintiffs’ claims for vicarious liability, negligent training, hiring and supervision, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, resulting in dismissal of the client, Prime Eight Ten, LLC.
• Alarie v L’Anse Creuse Public Schools, et al — successfully drafted a motion for summary disposition for L’Anse Creuse Public Schools regarding governmental immunity and the statute of limitations. Plaintiff brought frivolous claims for violations of the Child Protection Laws, negligent infliction of emotional distress and intentional infliction of emotional distress, all of which were dismissed on summary disposition.
• Bailey v Hamtramck Square 1 – Successfully drafted a motion for summary disposition on a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy on behalf Hamtramck Square 1.
• Jordan v Hamtramck Public Schools — Co-authored a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan that resulted in complete dismissal of plaintiff’s claims for violations of the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Elliott-Larson Civil Rights Act, the Michigan Whistleblower’s Protection Act and Title VII.
• Wilcoxon v. Femminineo, et al — successfully briefed and argued a motion for summary disposition that resulted in dismissal of the case.  The motion was based on (C)(7), (8), and (10) related to the plaintiff’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract, legal malpractice, common law and statutory conversion, and fraud.
• Craig Ingram v Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company — successfully briefed the case which led to the Michigan Court of Appeals overturning the trial court's decision in favor of the insurance company. The appeal involved issues of contract formation in the context of settlement negotiations where plaintiff’s attorney attempted to “accept” a previous offer that had been rejected via a counteroffer, as well as terminated due to lapse of time between the offer and acceptance and no revival any point in time prior to the purported acceptance.
• Centria Home Health Rehabilitation v Allstate — assisted in the briefing of this published Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in a PIP case where a provider filed claims for money over and above that already paid by the insurance company. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the defendant, finding the plaintiff failed to show charges were incurred over and above those already paid.
• Central Home Health Care Services, Inc. v Esurance Property and Casualty Insurance Company — briefed this case regarding the issue of which section of the fee schedule statute applied to home health services. The issue on appeal was whether reimbursement for the services allegedly rendered by the plaintiff was subject to limitations in MCL 500.3157(2)(a) (a reimbursement cap of 200% of what Medicare would have paid for the services), or MCL 500.3157(7)(a)(i) and subject to statutory interpretation.
• Noudiamintya Molsby v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, et al. — Successfully argued a motion for summary disposition in a motor vehicle negligence case in favor of the clients, who were the individual insureds. The case was dismissed due to lack of threshold injuries.
• Lamont Sumerlin v Farm Bureau, et al. — Obtained summary disposition in favor of the Michigan Assigned Claims Plan assigned insurer in a No-Fault PIP benefits coverage dispute, dismissing the claim due to issues with the order of priority

Professional Affiliations

• State Bar of Michigan (Appellate Practice Section, council member, 2025 - 2028)
• Eastern District of Michigan Bar Association (Membership Committee)
• Oakland County Bar Association
• Detroit Bar Association