Acme Manufacturing Co., Inc. Case

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF MACOMB

Hartland Insurance Company CO., a Michigan Corporation.

Plaintiff, Case No. 58, p. 78. 462719 - N.P. v Hon. ____________ Acme Manufacturing Co., a Delaware Corporation.

Defendants. The Defendants.

Miles and Partners, PLLC, Zachary A. Miles (P111111) Jah’Juan Bess (P12345) Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Acme Manufacturing Co. 471 W Palmer Ave., 471 W Palmer Ave., Detroit, MI 48202 Detroit, MI 48202 Hi7654@wayne.edu Jbess@wayne.edu.

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY DISPOSITION.

Defendant Acme Manufacturing Co. (hereafter “Acme”), by its attorney, Jah’Juan Bess, moves for summary disposition on Plaintiff’s claims against it pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). Specifically, …show more content…
When deciding a motion on this ground, a court may consider only the parties’ pleadings. MCR 2.116(G)(5). See also “[A]ll well-pleaded allegations are accepted as true, and construed most favorably to the non-moving party.” Wade v. Dept. of Corrections, 439 Mich. 158, 162-163 (1992). “A mere statement of a pleader’s conclusions and statements of law, unsupported by allegations of fact, will not suffice to state a cause of action.” Varela v Spanski, 329 Mich App 58, 79 (2019) (plaintiff failed to plead facts in support of his claim but instead made conclusory statements and conclusions of law). A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) may be granted only where the claims alleged are “so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could possibly justify recovery.” Wade, 439 Mich at 163.” If the Plaintiff has not met the burden to show by a preponderance of the evidence that a claim may be brought forth upon which relief may be granted, where there is no genuine dispute in the facts of the matter, summary disposition is appropriate. In the matter at hand, in light of the Plaintiff’s allegations, no reasonable jury could find in favor of Plaintiff on any of the counts brought …show more content…
78. Co. (“Hartland”), filed a frivolous lawsuit against Acme Mfg. Co. (“Acme”) to recover $223,000.00 paid out under an insurance policy which the Moore family (“Insureds”) was covered, after filing the claim at issue due to the loss of their home in Shelby Township, Michigan. Exhibit A. The home was damaged due to a fire on April 17, 2022, which Hartland alleges is the result of a defective Acme Slimline Toaster (“Toaster”). Hartland has not provided sufficient evidence to prove the Toaster was the cause of the April 17 fire. Furthermore, they have failed to contradict evidence that the Toaster was used in a negligent manner by the Insured. On April 17, 2022, and prior, the Insured had used the Toaster, without properly cleaning it and left the toaster unattended while it was in use. These uses and practices are in direct conflict with the Use & Care Instructions & attached warnings, which are provided to every customer who purchases an Acme toaster. Acme is entitled to summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) on the basis that Hartland has yet to provide the factual sufficiency to support Plaintiffs Complaint. The pleadings, depositions, and discovery have yet to establish a genuine issue of material fact. Hartland asserts claims of, Manufacturing Defect (Count I), Design Defect (Count II), and Breach of Implied Warranty (Count

Show More

Related Documents: Acme Manufacturing Co., Inc. Case

Essay on Crocs Marketing Plan