TOV Injury and Safety Blog

Court allows evidence from litigant who had earlier claimed fifth amendment privilege

Paul Paulson claimed the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination in a debtor's examination arising out of his bankruptcy claim.  Later, the assignee of Old Kent Bank, who was a major creditor of his defunct business, Lakeside Machine, Inc., sued Paulson and his wife for fraud or "reckless disregard of the truth."  The wife claimed that she was simply acting in a ministerial role when she signed various loan documents for the bank, and her husband filed an affidavit supporting this claim. 

Title Agency must defend claim of gross negligence

When BCV Colonnade attempted to sell the K-Mart it owned in Jackson, it relied upon United Realty Companies, LLC and the Morris Home Title Agency to close the transaction. It required the buyer to maintain a $100,000.00 cash deposit with Chicago Title Insurance Company and Morris Home until the closing date, and was twice assured by Morris that the deposit was secure.  The buyer failed to perform, and when BCV sought the escrow from Morris, it was informed that the buyer had also failed to place the cash deposit with Morris. 

Verdict in favor of contractor upheld

John Kotsonis sued Raymond Anglin, his contractor, for defective work installing a roof on Kotsonis' home.  The jury found that Anglin's work was not in accordance with industry standards, but also held that installing the insulation and vapor barrier upside down did not "cause" Kotsonis' condensation and moisture problems.   The Court of Appeals upheld the defense verdict, finding that there was adequate evidence to support the defendant's claim that he acted reasonably in installing the vapor barrier upside down, expecting it to be removed and reinstalled after drywall repairs were completed.  While the defendant's claim sounds preposterous and it appears that something else influenced the jurors' decision, the Kotsonis case confirms how difficult it is for a losing litigant to overturn a jury's verdict.

Title insurer once again insulated from error by contract language

In an Emmet County case filed by Brian Ludlow, the Court was forced to adjudicate the relative rights to Block 16 in a Carp Lake Township platted subdivision.  The Defendants in the case, who were accused of selling more than they owned [specifically abandoned roadways], joined their title insurers in the action as third-party defendants.  The latter defendants, Petoskey Title Company and Lawyer's Title Insurance Corporation, argued that they should be dismissed because their contract did not insure against the Plaintiff's claims. 

Court of Appeals decides to publish case rejecting title insurer negligence

Several weeks ago, we described the holding in Wormsbacher and W & FLLC v. Phillip R. Seaver Title Company, Inc., holding, in which a panel of the Court of Appeals concluded that a title insurance company cannot be held responsible for negligence.  This month, the panel decided the decision should be published and serve as a precedent for the proposition that title insurers can only be held responsible to fulfill the duties they spell out in the title insurance contract.  Under the decision, insureds have no remedies other than those agreed to by the insurer in the contract.  The judges concluded that if a buyer or developer wants a remedy in the event of an error in examining the title, it should pay for an abstract rather than a title insurance commitment.

Court analyzes mobile home mold claim

Steven and Amber Raab purchased a manufactured home and leased a lot from River Ridge-Saline, LLC in November 2000.  The lot didn't drain properly, resulting in mold problems focused primarily underneath the mobile home.  The Raabs consulted experts who documented the mold problems, however, their findings did not indicate catastrophic damages.  One expert did testify, however, that it would cost $48,000.00 to remediate the problems.  Despite this claim, the trial court removed the case to District Court on the basis that reasonable minds could not conclude that the family suffered more than $25,000.00--the jurisdictional limit of the Court.

Party added through "Notice of Third Party Fault" seeks sanctions

The Koza family sued a number of parties after their new mobile home became consumed by toxic mold.  One of the original Defendants identified a number of contractors who helped place the home, including Unique Electric, as "non parties at fault" in causing the water leakage that resulted in the runaway mold problem. The Plaintiff family joined them in the suit, which was ultimately settled by the original defendants.  Meanwhile "Unique" was dismissed by summary disposition and sought costs from the Koza family, maintaining the claim against Unique was frivolous.

Title insurers aren't responsible for negligence in Michigan

Apparently because there was concern they would flee the state, Michigan title insurers have gradually been granted immunity by state court judges, at least according to the Court of Appeals' recent ruling in Wormsbacher v. Phillip R. Seaver Title Co.  A buyer who relied on title searches before buying land in a Rochester subdivision attempted to sue the title company when it turned out that the company failed to advise him of restrictions prohibiting commercial use of the land.

Purchasers cannot sue over mold problem

Dr. Charles Gabe and his wife bought a home knowing that it had water problems in the basement.  They attempted to sue when they later learned of mold problems in the walls.  They couldn't point to an express misrepresentation by the sellers, however, they believed that the sellers were guilty of "silent" fraud--that is, failing to disclose all that they knew about the existence of "material" water and mold problems.