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
Liability SD Granted
Plaintiff refused reasonable offers at a facilitation and scoffed at threats of a potential liability Motion for Summary Disposition. The Plaintiff undoubtedly regrets that decision as the SD was eventually granted. Trey Cotten argued that Plaintiff could not create a question of fact on the issue of liability by changing her deposition testimony from a prior recorded statement. The Court found sufficient evidence that demonstrated Plaintiff was the proximate cause of the accident and granted Defendant’s Motion for Summary Disposition with prejudice.
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.