In Jones v. Home Owners Ins. Co.COA, a 2-1 unpublished opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a claimant suffering disabling injury in an auto accident was entitled to no-fault wage-loss benefits under Michigan's No-Fault Act, characterizing her as "temporarily unemployed" under MCL 500.3107a. MCL 500.3107 of the No-Fault Act provides for first-party insurer "work-loss [...]
Tag: amicus curious
Bank’s Failure to Raise “Abandonment” of Contract Constitutes Waiver in Breach of Contract Action
In Clapper, et al. v. Zochowski, et al, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling granting summary disposition in favor of a bank in a breach of contract action surrounding a loan purchase agreement. The plaintiff sought to purchase a loan obligation held by the bank. The bank was required to produce certain [...]
Insurance Carrier Covering Worker’s Initial Injury Wage-Loss Benefits May Apportion Liability for Wage-Loss Benefits With Insurance Carrier Covering Worker’s Second Disabling Injury Suffered While the Employee was Performing “Reasonable Employment” Work
In a published opinion after a remand order from the Michigan Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals has ruled that under the Workers' Disability Compensation Act (WDCA), an insurance carrier responsible for paying worker's compensation (wage-loss benefits) for an employee's initial disabling injury, may apportion its liability for wage-loss benefits with the insurance carrier covering [...]
Employee’s Violation of Company Policy Regarding Computer Use to Access Flight Information for Airline Passenger Not “Disqualifying Willful / Wanton Misconduct” Sufficient to Deny Unemployment Benefits
In a published opinion issued on July 15, 2014, the Michigan Court of Appeals ruled that a security guard's access of a computer to provide an airline passenger information about a flight's departure did not meet the legal standard for "misconduct" sufficient to deny unemployment benefits after termination from employment. The employee was a privately [...]
“[The] killings [of American citizens] undertaken in accord with the public authority justification were not ‘unlawful’ because they were justified”, Says Government Memo Outlining Legal Authority for Assassination of American Citizens Abroad
I started casually reading the Second Circuit’s opinion released yesterday, June 23, 2014, in the case of New York Times, et al. v. DOJ, et al, which includes a redacted version of the government’s now infamous legal memorandum outlining legal justification for executive decisions to assassinate American citizens abroad and I could not help casually analyzing [...]