Attorneys
That Get Results
Since 1997
RCR has remained committed to providing clients high quality and efficient legal representation both in and out of the courtroom. Our attorneys represent individuals, businesses, insurance companies and banks throughout the great state of Michigan.
Your needs come first. We take pride in making ourselves available to our clients through all stages of litigation. Our attorneys provide aggressive defense representation and have in-depth experience with insurance defense matters.
RCR News
MSD Granted
Facts: Rochelle Konja secured summary disposition in an automobile negligence action involving a claimed phantom vehicle and uninsured motorist coverage. Another defendant alleged that an unidentified vehicle caused him to swerve into Plaintiff, and Plaintiff argued that the phantom vehicle triggered uninsured motorist coverage. We argued that the policy required the unidentified vehicle to “strike” the insured or occupied vehicle, and there was no evidence of the required physical contact. The Court GRANTED summary disposition, rejecting Plaintiff’s ambiguity argument and dismissing the uninsured motorist claim.
Laser and Shockwave Therapy Tossed
A large direct provider bill was slashed dramatically after the Judge granted Tom’s motion for partial summary disposition. Mr. Roeder argued that MCL 333.16104 mandates that the administration of medical treatment must be performed by licenses physicians and that the laser and shockwave treatment being provided by the Plaintiff was improper and not supervised or performed by a doctor. The Judge agreed and granted RCR’s motion.
Dismissed With Prejudice
RCR Attorney Janine Plourde recently obtained summary disposition in favor of a vehicle owner who was sued for injuries arising out of a car accident that allegedly involved her vehicle. Under Michigan law, a vehicle owner can be held 100% liable for injuries in such cases. But Janine successfully proved that her client had not consented to the use of her vehicle and, as such, the claims against Janine’s client were dismissed with prejudice.