Latham v Barton Malow Co
Latham v Barton Malow Co, 2006 WL 2956334 (Mich App Oct 17, 2006) and
Latham v Barton Malow Co, 480 Mich 105, 746 NW2d 868 (2008)
A general contractor can be held liable for an injury to a subcontractor’s employee when it is shown that the general contractor failed to ensure compliance with safety procedures/protection and the contractor ignored the non-use of provided safety equipment by a number of workers on its construction site. In our case, we successfully argued that the employee of a subcontractor who fell 13 – 17′ while unloading drywall from a lift was entitled to sue the general contractor even though the worker was not wearing mandated safety harness.
Andrew Lefko
Andrew Lefko: Public Act 103, known as “Andy’s Law” went into effect Oct. 1, 2001. The law creates penalties of up to one year in prison for injuring and up to 15 years in prison for killing a highway construction or maintenance worker. It also imposes a maximum penalty of $7,500. The law is named for Andrew Lefko, a 19-year-old who was left paralyzed after being hit while working on I-275 in Metro Detroit.
2001 settlement in the amount of $4.1 Million Dollars for an injured construction worker, Andy Lefko, who was struck by a motor vehicle during the course of his employment while moving barrels in the traveled portion of a roadway.
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_SOA2015AndysLawSigningPolicyUpdate_506433_7.pdf
https://www.michigan.gov/mdot/0,4616,7-151-9615_11261_45351-92183–,00.html
Representative cases
DeROO v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
CARIANNE DEROO, Plaintiff, v. UNUM LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant (Civil Action No. 18-CV-11216. United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division. April 10, 2019.)
Carianne DeRoo, Plaintiff, represented by Mark Anthony Aiello , Aiello Law Group, PLLC & John A. Buehner, III , Aiello Law Group, PLLC.
Having carefully reviewed the 1,955-page administrative record (hereinafter “AR”), as well as the parties’ lengthy briefs, the Court finds and concludes that plaintiff is entitled to LTD benefits under the policy and that defendant’s termination of those benefits was contrary to the policy.
Under the policy, plaintiff is entitled to LTD benefits if, due to sickness or injury, she is under the regular care of a physician and is “unable to perform the duties of any gainful occupation for which [she is] reasonably fitted by education, training or experience”2 (AR at 121). The policy defines “gainful occupation” as “an occupation that is or can be expected to provide you with an income within 12 months of your return to work, that exceeds . . . 60% of your indexed monthly earning, if you are not working” (AR at 139).
In addition to winning the case, the Judge Ordered UNUM to pay our attorney fees and costs.
