We efficiently provide counsel on a wide range of business and commercial issues, litigating cases on behalf of some of the largest corporations in the world as well as small business owners and individuals. Each matter gets our full attention and creative approach, including early evaluations of likely results and detailed budgets of expected fees and expenses. We listen, understand, fight efficiently and win.

Sometimes it is wise to settle matters. Other times our clients can only prevail before a jury. We painstakingly prepare each case for trial and, throughout the process, help our clients make the best possible business decisions from a fully informed perspective.

Michael Crow

NOTABLE CASES

Ford v Architectural Door & Millwork
This case involved the defective manufacture and sale of custom wood trim and molding. Prior to trial, Plaintiff’s last settlement demand was $500,000. The case evaluated against our client for an award of $50,000. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a no cause verdict in favor of our client. As Plaintiff rejected the case evaluation award, a Motion for Taxation of Costs and Case Evaluation Sanctions returned $50,000 in attorney fees to our client.
BFC Management v Jani-King of Michigan
In September, 2008, BFC Management, Plaintiff’s strip club, was intentionally torched by an employee/independent contractor of our client, Jani-King. Judge Gillis denied numerous Motions for Summary Disposition. After two weeks in trial, the jury returned a verdict of No Cause of Action in favor of our client. Thereafter, the Court ordered Plaintiff pay costs and attorney fees to Defendant in the amount of $117,000.
Estate Development v Road Commission of Oakland County
We tried a plaintiff’s case wherein Plaintiff owned property on Mirror Lake, located in Orchard Lake Village, Michigan. Defendant initiated an extensive road construction project on Pontiac Trial. During the project, Defendant blocked the only drain pipe for Mirror Lake, causing Estate Development's land to flood. Estate Development repeatedly asked Defendant to clear the pipe to relieve the flood waters, but these requests were ignored. As a result of this flood, which was directly caused by Defendant's road construction project, the wetlands surrounding Mirror Lake significantly expanded. Michigan law prohibits any construction within close proximity of a wetland. Unfortunately, the wetlands expanded so significantly that Estate Development's proposed development around Mirror Lake, which was previously approved by Orchard Lake Village, was destroyed. Following a two-week trial against no less than six defense attorneys and a very demanding Judge, we obtained a jury verdict of $1.7 million. With interest and case evaluation sanctions, however, the total recovery exceeded $2 million.
Zeidman v Psciuk
The Zeidman case involved a class action including 82 Plaintiff school teachers, who originally filed their Complaint in 1980. Plaintiffs were allegedly defrauded by our client, who sold them annuities. Plaintiffs claimed the annuities were actually worthless life insurance policies. The case was originally tried in 1985, resulting in a jury verdict in excess of $2.3 million. Plaintiffs’ attorney was Geoffrey Feiger. Judge Prentis Edwards ruled in favor of Plaintiffs on everything, including over 25 trial motions. The $493,066.00 verdict for unfulfilled reasonable expectations was reduced by $380,000.00 for a settlement entered into with other Defendants prior to trial, netting a remainder of $113,066.
Werner v Expert Diesel
This smaller case involved the negligent installation of an engine in our client's, the Plaintiff's, sweeper truck. Prior to trial, Defendant made no attempt to settle this case. After a three-day trial in District Court, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the Plaintiff in excess of $13,000. Because the engine was installed for a cost of $8,000, our client was incredibly happy with the verdict, which included damages for loss of business income.
Lisiecki v Wet Seal
Defendant’s last offer was $7,500. Plaintiff’s last demand was $30,000. After a successful jury verdict and mediation sanctions, the case resolved for $0.
ICW v SMART
In short, our client, ICW, paid a settlement on behalf of its insured, SMART bus company, of approximately $3.25 million. Despite a $1 million SIR, SMART refused to tender its SIR citing bad faith on behalf of ICW in settling the underlying matter. Due to a contractual glitch, this matter was forced into arbitration and SMART was allowed to select two of the three arbitrators to serve on the arbitration panel. Despite what appeared to be insurmountable odds, we persevered to secure an arbitration award of not only the $1 million owed, but we were also able to recover costs, interest and attorney fees on behalf of our client. ($1,157,264.10 owed).
Fath v Fairway
Case involved major home reconstruction. Allegations included defective workmanship resulting in mold infiltration. Plaintiffs alleged the $500,000 house had to be destroyed. After three weeks of trial, the case settled for nuisance value at the close of Plaintiffs’ proofs.

PUT OUR PROVEN RECORD OF SUCCESS TO WORK FOR YOU

Contact Crow Law Firm at (313) 925-2999 or tell us how we can help you by filling out the form below.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.