Vandeveer Garzia, P.C.
Attorneys & Counselors
1450 West Long Lake Rd
Suite 100
Troy, MI 48098

248-312-2800
248-267-1242 (fax)

www.VGpcLAW.com
info@VGpcLAW.com

Employment Opportunites
News about Lawyers
News about Firm Litigation

EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES

VANDEVEER GARZIA
Associate Attorney

NEWS ABOUT VANDEVEER GARZIA LAWYERS 

Super Lawyers is a service conducted by the publishers of Law & Politics.  Super Lawyers identifies the top 5 percent of attorneys in the state as chosen by their peers and through the independent research of Law & Politics.

Law & Politics mailed more than 30,000 ballots to active attorneys in Michigan recently asking those attorneys to nominate the best lawyers that they have personally observed.  Each candidate who was nominated was then researched and evaluated.  Peer recognition and personal achievement were primary factors in this process.  Candidates were then evaluated again by a blue ribbon panel of preeminent peers in their practice areas.  An attorney who was finally selected in this process was then designated a “Super Lawyer”.  No more than 5 percent of Michigan attorneys were selected for this honor.

Thomas M. Peters was designated a Super Lawyer in the practice area of Personal Injury Defense.  James K. Thome was designated a Super Lawyer for Construction Litigation. William L. Kiriazis was designated for Construction litigation as well.  Daniel P. Steele and David B. Timmis were named Super Lawyers for General Litigation.

Tom’s areas of practice include Transportation, Trucking and Highway Liability, Alternate Dispute Resolution and Insurance Coverage and Indemnity Law.  

Along with Construction Law and Litigation, Jim also concentrates his practice in the areas of Intellectual Property and Trademark Litigation and Employment Law and Litigation.  

Bill's areas include Construction Law and Litigation, Aviation Law and Litigation, Design Professional Representation and Product Liability.

Dan focuses on Motor Vehicle Law and Litigation, Employment Law and Litigation, Construction Law and Litigation, Aviation Law and Litigation, and Product Liability.

Dave practices in the areas of Motor Vehicle Law and Litigation, Business and Commercial Litigation, Employment Law and Litigation, and Product Liability.

FIRM WINS DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYMENT CASE

Shortly after the firm’s client, a steel casting company, hired the plaintiff as a Production Manager, he sustained an injury on the job.  After the plaintiff recovered from his injury and a physician indicated that he was able to return to work without restrictions, the company terminated his employment for poor performance.  The plaintiff then sued the firm’s client in the Wayne County Circuit Court alleging violations of the Michigan Worker’s Disability Compensation Act and the Michigan Persons with Disabilities Civil Rights Act.

After depositions of the plaintiff and others, the firm brought a motion for summary disposition asking the court to dismiss the case on the grounds that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the plaintiff’s claims lacked merit.  The judge agreed and granted the motion. 

The plaintiff has appealed the trial court’s decision in Leinninger v Delray Steel Casting, Wayne County Circuit Court case number 06-628405-NZ.  The defendants have filed a motion to assess costs and attorneys’ fees against the plaintiff.

James K. Thome supervised the case for the firm’s clients.    

FIRM WINS CONSTRUCTION ACCIDENT ARBITRATION

 Jim Thome recently represented a firm client in an arbitration hearing that resulted in a complete victory for the client. 

 The Michigan Department of Transportation hired a general contractor to perform renovations to the I-94 Expressway in Macomb County in 2002 and 2003.  The general contractor hired subcontractors to perform some of the work.  One of those subcontractors hired the firm’s client to clean storm sewers after the renovation work.  There were claims that water began to accumulate at locations on that freeway due to problems with the work of the contractors and a failure to adequately clean the storm sewers. 

 After a rain storm on May 5, 2003, two people, a man and a woman, were involved in a minor accident in an area of standing water on that freeway.  They drove off the freeway onto the shoulder and were standing outside of their vehicles talking when another driver hit the standing water, lost control of her truck, and struck the two people.  One was killed as a result of the accident and the other sustained severe injuries. 

 The injured person and the relatives of the deceased sued MDOT and the contractors who did the work in the area of the accident.  Five contractors, including the firm’s client, agreed to settle the injury and death cases.  Each contributed $500,000 to a total settlement of $2.5 million.  The contractors then agreed to submit the case to binding arbitration in order to re-allocate that settlement amount based on the fault or involvement of each contractor in contributing to the conditions that caused the accident. 

 The arbitration hearing lasted several days with witnesses and numerous exhibits.  In June 2007, the arbitration panel determined that the firm’s client was not culpable and awarded the firm’s client the entire $500,000 it had previously contributed to the settlement of the injury and death cases, along with interest in excess of $30,000.

-----

Bruce Pearce has recently received dismissals from several courts regarding automobile negligence claims: 

Judge Gershwin Drain from the Wayne County Circuit Court recently ruled as matter of law that plaintiff failed to establish the necessary element of proximate cause in an automobile accident and granted defendants motion for summary disposition. Shortly after the accident the plaintiff was diagnosed with a “syrinx” of the spinal column. This condition caused her to be confined to a nursing home where she currently resides.  Mr.  Pearce argued that it was speculation to conclude that the auto accident caused this condition and the court agreed.  Richardson v. Collins, WCCC 

Judge  Miller from the Macomb County court also recently granted summary disposition in favor of Mr. Pearce’s client on the issue of “serious impairment”. Judge Miller ruled as a matter of law that the “course and trajectory” of her life had not been altered as a result of  the broken foot incurred in an automobile accident. Accordingly he dismissed the case.  Collins v. Mazzolla, MCCC

Mr. Pearce also received a favorable ruling from Judge Warfield Moore from the Wayne County Circuit Court in a case involving neck and back injuries. The plaintiff claimed these injuries as a result of a motorcycle accident. Judge Moore agreed with Mr. Pearce’s position that despite the plaintiff’s injuries that the injuries did not satisfy the necessary requirements set out by the Michigan Supreme Court decision of Kreiner. Accordingly Judge Moore granted defendants motion for summary disposition.  Meinheit v. Mitchell, MCCC
   
Another motion for summary disposition on the issue of “serious impairment” was granted by Judge Joslyn in Tuscola County.  The plaintiff alleged injuries to her back, neck and jaw (ie TMD) as a result of auto accident. Her treating physician disabled her from returning to her regular employment as a custodian as a result of these injuries. However, Mr.  Pearce was successful in persuading the court that her injuries did not meet the threshold required to recover under the law in Michigan. Jones v. Boyce, TCCC   

------

TRIAL/RESOLUTION DURING JURY DELIBERATIONS - IMPORTANCE OF TIMELY FILING OF
NOTICE OF NONPARTY FAULT

Mr. David Timmis recently tried a case on behalf of a national product manufacturer and a national retailer in the County of Oakland.  Despite a Case Evaluation that was weighted significantly against the product manufacturer and the retailer, the proofs presented at the time of trial convinced a co-defendant, the manufacturer of the display on which the products were situated, to pay all but a nominal portion of the resolution of the claim.  The agreement to resolve the claim occurred after the jury had commenced deliberations. 

The significance of the decision of the manufacturer of the display, to pay all but a nominal portion of the settlement figure, is that it is important to consider nonparties potentially at fault at the outset of the litigation.  The manufacturer of the display was not initially named as party by Plaintiff’s counsel. Upon the filing of a Notice of Nonparty Fault and as the result of the urging of Mr. Timmis, the Plaintiff’s attorney amended the original Complaint to include the display manufacturer as a Defendant.  Without the display manufacturer as a co-defendant, the product manufacturer and the retailer would likely have been found responsible for the Plaintiff’s injuries.

APPEAL/CONTRACTS/ALLEGED CONDITION
PRECEDENT MUST BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED

Mr. David Timmis recently received a favorable ruling from the Michigan Court of Appeals in a contract action involving the attempted purchase of a car dealership.  The Plaintiff signed an agreement with the Defendant that would entitle the Plaintiff to a significant fee if the Plaintiff was able to enter a Purchase Agreement with the owner of a car dealership, then transfer his rights in the Purchase Agreement to the Defendant.  The Plaintiff entered into the Purchase Agreement with the owner of the car dealership, then transferred his interest in the Purchase Agreement to the Defendant.  The subject agreement provided as follows: 

The Defendant claimed that the phrase “at the closing” constituted a “condition precedent”, and relied on this position to avoid paying the Plaintiff, as the Defendant never closed on the purchase of the dealership.  The Court of Appeals disagreed with  the Defendant’s position and held that the “clear language (of the agreement between Mr. Meagher and Mr. LaFontaine) … conditions payment on Plaintiff’s conveyance of his interest and not a closing of the purchase”.  The Court further commented that “courts are not inclined to construe stipulations of a contract as conditions precedent unless compelled by the language of the contract.”  Click here for text of unpublished opinion.