MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (January 13, 2026) - Leiendecker v. Ascension (Docket No. 372252).
Michigan Court of Appeals Addresses Wild Animal Liability on Commercial Property, Emphasizing the Role of Notice.
On January 13, 2026, in a decision recommended for publication, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued important guidance on liability exposure arising from wild animal encounters on commercial premises. In Leiendecker v. Ascension Genesys Hospital (No. 372252), the plaintiff, a contractor at a hospital facility, was allegedly attacked and knocked to the ground by a goose while exiting the property, resulting in a fractured hip and subsequent surgery. The Court reaffirmed the long-standing doctrine of ferae naturae, holding that property owners and contractors are not liable in ordinary negligence for injuries caused by wild animals absent dominion, control, or possession of the animal itself. At the same time, the Court drew a critical distinction for premises liability claims. Where a wild animal’s presence constitutes a known, ongoing dangerous condition on the land, and the landowner allegedly fails to warn or take reasonable protective measures for invitees, a premises liability claim may survive at the pleading stage. The decision reinforces that early dispositive motion practice remains a powerful defense tool in wildlife-related injury cases, while underscoring the importance of knowledge, notice, and response protocols for property owners and risk managers.
Michigan Court of Appeals Addresses Wild Animal Liability on Commercial Property, Emphasizing the Role of Notice.
On January 13, 2026, in a decision recommended for publication, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued important guidance on liability exposure arising from wild animal encounters on commercial premises. In Leiendecker v. Ascension Genesys Hospital (No. 372252), the plaintiff, a contractor at a hospital facility, was allegedly attacked and knocked to the ground by a goose while exiting the property, resulting in a fractured hip and subsequent surgery. The Court reaffirmed the long-standing doctrine of ferae naturae, holding that property owners and contractors are not liable in ordinary negligence for injuries caused by wild animals absent dominion, control, or possession of the animal itself. At the same time, the Court drew a critical distinction for premises liability claims. Where a wild animal’s presence constitutes a known, ongoing dangerous condition on the land, and the landowner allegedly fails to warn or take reasonable protective measures for invitees, a premises liability claim may survive at the pleading stage. The decision reinforces that early dispositive motion practice remains a powerful defense tool in wildlife-related injury cases, while underscoring the importance of knowledge, notice, and response protocols for property owners and risk managers.
| michigan-court-of-appeals-wild-animal-liability-ascension-genesys-hospital-2026.pdf.pdf |
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (January 9, 2026) - Swanson v. Bittersweet Ski Resort Inc (Docket No. 366258).
Immunity and Waivers clash with Public Policy in Ski Resort Gross Liability Case - Michigan Court of Appeals.
Michigan Court of Appeals (For Publication): In a significant clarification of the scope of immunity under the Ski Area Safety Act of 1962 (SASA), the Court of Appeals held on January 9, 2026, in Swanson v. Bittersweet Ski Resort, Inc., that SASA does not extend immunity to claims of gross negligence. The Court also held that due to public policy, a waiver cannot release claims arising out of gross negligence. The Court distinguished prior decisions such as Anderson, Grieb, and Kent, where immunity applied because the injuries arose from risks inherent to the sport of skiing. Here, by contrast, the Court held that neither SASA nor a contractual waiver shields a ski resort from liability where the alleged misconduct rises to the level of gross negligence.
Immunity and Waivers clash with Public Policy in Ski Resort Gross Liability Case - Michigan Court of Appeals.
Michigan Court of Appeals (For Publication): In a significant clarification of the scope of immunity under the Ski Area Safety Act of 1962 (SASA), the Court of Appeals held on January 9, 2026, in Swanson v. Bittersweet Ski Resort, Inc., that SASA does not extend immunity to claims of gross negligence. The Court also held that due to public policy, a waiver cannot release claims arising out of gross negligence. The Court distinguished prior decisions such as Anderson, Grieb, and Kent, where immunity applied because the injuries arose from risks inherent to the sport of skiing. Here, by contrast, the Court held that neither SASA nor a contractual waiver shields a ski resort from liability where the alleged misconduct rises to the level of gross negligence.
| michigan-court-of-appeals-sasagross-negligence-swanson-v-bittersweet-ski-resort-2026.pdf.pdf |
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (December 18, 2025) - Love v. Randolph (Docket No. 369895).
MCL 500.3114(5) under the Michigan No-Fault Act does not Require Physical Contact with a Motorcycle for Coverage to Apply according to New Michigan Court of Appeals ruling.
In Love v. Randolph, December 18, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a published decision, clarifies motorcycle priority disputes under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3114(5). Key takeaway: A motorcyclist injured in a multi-vehicle chain-reaction accident may seek PIP benefits from the insurer of a motor vehicle that actively contributed to the accident, even where that vehicle never physically contacted the motorcycle and another vehicle ultimately made impact. The Court reaffirmed that whether a vehicle is “involved in the accident” under MCL 500.3114(5) turns on a fact-intensive, causation-based analysis, not a bright-line physical-contact test, where the record supports meaningful involvement. See Love v. Randolph, 2025 Mich App LEXIS 10220.
MCL 500.3114(5) under the Michigan No-Fault Act does not Require Physical Contact with a Motorcycle for Coverage to Apply according to New Michigan Court of Appeals ruling.
In Love v. Randolph, December 18, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals, in a published decision, clarifies motorcycle priority disputes under Michigan’s No-Fault Act, MCL 500.3114(5). Key takeaway: A motorcyclist injured in a multi-vehicle chain-reaction accident may seek PIP benefits from the insurer of a motor vehicle that actively contributed to the accident, even where that vehicle never physically contacted the motorcycle and another vehicle ultimately made impact. The Court reaffirmed that whether a vehicle is “involved in the accident” under MCL 500.3114(5) turns on a fact-intensive, causation-based analysis, not a bright-line physical-contact test, where the record supports meaningful involvement. See Love v. Randolph, 2025 Mich App LEXIS 10220.
| michigan-court-of-appeals-no-fault-act-motorcycle-involvement-love-v-randolph-2025.pdf.pdf |
U.S. 6TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS (December 17, 2025) - Poynter v. Bennett (Docket No. 25-5188).
Constitutional Law Claims under the 14th Amendment and Monell are Permitted where Systemic Dangers result in Undue Harm.
6th Circuit Court of Appeals: On December 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Poynter v. Bennett, delivered a decisive clarification of municipal liability under the U.S. Constitution, reframing how “intentional conduct” is evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983. The Court recognized that constitutional harm rarely traces back to a single rogue official; instead, liability may arise from the cumulative effect of routine practices that, taken together, create an objectively dangerous system. The ruling carries significant implications for claims involving inmate classification, supervision and monitoring, staffing decisions, suicide-prevention protocols, and systemic medical care.
Constitutional Law Claims under the 14th Amendment and Monell are Permitted where Systemic Dangers result in Undue Harm.
6th Circuit Court of Appeals: On December 17, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in Poynter v. Bennett, delivered a decisive clarification of municipal liability under the U.S. Constitution, reframing how “intentional conduct” is evaluated under the Fourteenth Amendment and § 1983. The Court recognized that constitutional harm rarely traces back to a single rogue official; instead, liability may arise from the cumulative effect of routine practices that, taken together, create an objectively dangerous system. The ruling carries significant implications for claims involving inmate classification, supervision and monitoring, staffing decisions, suicide-prevention protocols, and systemic medical care.
| sixth-circuit-court-of-appeals-municipal-liability-systemic-dangers-poynter-v-bennett-2025.pdf.pdf |
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS (November 20, 2025) - McPherson v. Alten Homes (Docket No. 368756).
Refining Settlement Release Language.
Last week's published Court of Appeals decision in McPherson v. Alten Homes, on November 20, 2025, concerning Res Judicata (Docket No. 368756), also underscores a potential issue in civil litigation in the insurance law context: release language that is either too narrow or too loosely drafted invites future risk. In McPherson, the plaintiff’s first lawsuit, filed only against an individual shareholder, was dismissed because the defendant was not the proper party. A subsequent action was then filed against the corporation and its contractors. The trial court dismissed the second case on res judicata grounds, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was no true privity between the individual and the corporate or contractor defendants. The COA determined the earlier dismissal did not shield those additional parties under res judicata. Although McPherson arose in the res judicata context, the broader principle is instructive. When releases or dismissals do not expressly include all potentially exposed parties, litigants risk renewed or parallel litigation. The doctrine of “substantial identity of interests” remains an important and powerful defense tool, but even strong doctrines work best when supported by clear, comprehensive release language. Organizations should routinely evaluate whether their settlement agreements, hold-harmless provisions, and release templates adequately identify and protect all relevant parties, including contractors, subsidiaries, officers, agents, and insurers. Precision on the front end is far less costly than addressing gaps after litigation has resurfaced, especially for keeping costs down. If release language is not drafted carefully and broadly enough, future litigation may claw back the same insurer into future costly litigation.
Refining Settlement Release Language.
Last week's published Court of Appeals decision in McPherson v. Alten Homes, on November 20, 2025, concerning Res Judicata (Docket No. 368756), also underscores a potential issue in civil litigation in the insurance law context: release language that is either too narrow or too loosely drafted invites future risk. In McPherson, the plaintiff’s first lawsuit, filed only against an individual shareholder, was dismissed because the defendant was not the proper party. A subsequent action was then filed against the corporation and its contractors. The trial court dismissed the second case on res judicata grounds, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that there was no true privity between the individual and the corporate or contractor defendants. The COA determined the earlier dismissal did not shield those additional parties under res judicata. Although McPherson arose in the res judicata context, the broader principle is instructive. When releases or dismissals do not expressly include all potentially exposed parties, litigants risk renewed or parallel litigation. The doctrine of “substantial identity of interests” remains an important and powerful defense tool, but even strong doctrines work best when supported by clear, comprehensive release language. Organizations should routinely evaluate whether their settlement agreements, hold-harmless provisions, and release templates adequately identify and protect all relevant parties, including contractors, subsidiaries, officers, agents, and insurers. Precision on the front end is far less costly than addressing gaps after litigation has resurfaced, especially for keeping costs down. If release language is not drafted carefully and broadly enough, future litigation may claw back the same insurer into future costly litigation.
| michigan-court-of-appeals-res-judicata-release-language-mcpherson-v-alten-homes-2025.pdf.pdf |