Representative Cases

New Construction / Remodeling Issues

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. negotiates cancellation of our client’s purchase/construction agreement with builder/developer for a custom-built new home.

Expanded Description:
Our client entered into a purchase agreement with a builder/developer to purchase a newly constructed home in a sub-division/development in Metro Detroit. Just prior to our client obtaining the certificate of occupancy for the home and paying the balance of the purchase price, he questioned the quality of the home’s construction and many of the “a la carte” upgrades which he elected. The builder/developer was unwilling to address any of our client’s concerns, instead accusing of him of having “buyer’s remorse.” Within 3 weeks of intervening in this dispute, Molosky & Co. assisted our client secure the cancellation of the purchase/construction agreement for this custom home, plus the return our client’s $25,000.00 down payment. Remarkably, our client walked away from the deal paying the builder/developer just $1,000.00 towards a several hundred thousand dollar purchase/construction agreement.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
A condominium association refused to pay damages to our client, after extensive flooding of their condominium unit.

Expanded Description:
Our client resided in a beautiful, neo-gothic condominium building located on a prominent river. During a particularly cold time of year, another owner from the building informed an employee that a whooshing noise could be heard coming from the vacant unit above our client. When checking the unit in question, the employee found that a window had come open. The employee was unable to properly lock the window due to broken hardware. He decided to prop it shut. No further action was taken to assess for any potential damage threats. The room began to warm up which allowed a frozen and cracked pipe to thaw, flooding many condos in the building, including our client’s. The condominium association had not followed its own bylaws and shut off the water valve to the vacant unit. Water cascaded through our client’s ceiling and continued for several hours wreaking havoc on our client’s property. Molosky & Co. aggressively pursued the condominium association for being negligent and for owing a duty to its members and breaching that duty which, in turn, allowed for damage to our client’s property. Because of Molosky & Co.’s persistence, our client received a settlement in the amount of $250,000.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. secures $150,000 Stipulated Consent Judgment for nearly seven years of unpaid rent, and additional damages stemming from breach of implied contract/promissory estoppel.

Expanded Description:
Our clients were longtime family acquaintances of the defendants. In late 2007, the defendants approached our clients about re-purchasing the home the defendants just lost through a bank foreclosure. Our clients agreed, relying on the defendants’ promise that the proposed arrangement “wouldn’t cost our clients a thing,” and the defendants’ execution of a residential lease that was supposed to absorb all costs to our clients (mortgage, taxes, insurance, etc.). Defendants/tenants defaulted on their rent obligations and only paid a small fraction of the rent over the next several years, leaving our clients stuck paying the remaining mortgage payments and other expenses. After years of excuses and promises by the defendants/tenants to repay the unpaid rent and expenses, our clients finally sought our legal counsel in 2014. Within months of initiating litigation, Molosky & Co. prevailed on a motion for partial summary disposition, enabling our clients to obtain all their claimed damages (over $200,000) without the expense, uncertainty, and burden of going to trial. Thereafter, Molosky & Co. negotiated a Stipulated Consent Judgment in which the defendants stipulated to a judgment in the amount of $150,000 so long as they make scheduled monthly payments; in the event the defendants default on their monthly payments, the judgment automatically balloons to the entire $200,000 in damages our clients originally claimed. This result potentially saves our clients from the additional expense and uncertainty of using garnishments to secure their judgment, while guaranteeing their entire amount of claimed damages if the defendants do not make their timely monthly payments.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully regained possession of our client's golf course and obtained a money judgment against the tenant in the amount of $107,952.55.

Expanded Description:
Our client entered a lease-to-own agreement for her golf course. However, the tenant failed pay rent, insurance premiums, taxes, utilities, general expenses, and suppliers as well as failed to maintain the golf course. The tenant also charged over $9,000 to our client's credit card without authorization. In an interesting and multifaceted lawsuit that played out simultaneously in District Court and Circuit Court, Molosky & Co. successfully terminated the lease, regained possession of the golf course and, through motions for summary disposition, obtained two money judgments against defendant totaling over $110,000.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
After a modular home dealer mislead our clients regarding cabinets in their new home, Molosky & Co. successfully sued the dealer and obtained judgments totaling over $100,000.

Expanded Description:
Our clients visited a modular home dealer's lot and selected a home with custom cabinets. Specifically, the cabinets were represented to have a light maple finish. Upon delivery, our client discovered numerous problems and defects with the home, including dark oak cabinets. The modular home dealer sent a representative to assess the problem, who agreed that the cabinets were the wrong color and agreed to take action to correct the situation. When the company refused to address the defects as promised, we filed suit on our client's behalf. The company attempted to shield itself from liability to our client's for the misrepresented cabinets by engaging in an elaborate and sophisticated corporate entity shell game. Molosky & Co. fought through the facade proving that the company and its sole shareholder were liable under legal claims for successor liability, breach of contract, and breach of warranty. We obtained judgments against the various defendants totaling over $100,000.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully settled a complex business dispute involving a multi-million dollar company.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a successful businessman who turned a floundering, debt-ridden company into a highly successful and lucrative venture. The defendant business owner, once ready to walk away from the failing company, entered into an agreement with our client to re-build the company together. After several years of hard work, our client transformed the failing company, generating $1.5 million in profits over a three-year period, and garnering a $2.6 million purchase offer from an outside buyer. The defendant business owner then decided to be the sole recipient of the unexpected windfall, reneging on the agreement with our client and attempting to exclude our client from the benefit of his hard work and vision. After prevailing over the defendant business owner’s various motions to dismiss the case, and following extensive discovery, Molosky & Co. obtained a substantial and favorable settlement for our client.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
With the assistance of Molosky & Co, a property owner sued a tenant and received payment for unpaid rent expenses.

Expanded Description:
A property owner sued a tenant for unpaid rent pursuant to the terms of a written lease. Tenant denied signing a lease and that any past due payment was due. Molosky & Co. relentlessly pursued the tenant for documentation to support the non-payment of the agreed upon rent and after the tenant’s deposition, the tenant abruptly agreed to pay all past due rent (over $45,000) and costs.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully sued to recoup over $25,000 in outstanding accounts receivables for our client.

Expanded Description:
Our client makes a full line of molds. Over the course of a year, one of our client's customers submitted purchase orders for products and services totaling over $28,000. Our client fulfilled the purchase order and then delivered the customer its invoices. However, the customer paid only $1,076.07. Molosky & Co. filed suit on behalf of our client to recover the unpaid amounts, alleging claims for breach of contract and account stated. After supporting our claims with our client's affidavit, the customer failed to support its response with an affidavit, leading to our motion for summary disposition that the amount due and owing was conclusively established. Soon afterwards, we settled the case when the customer agreed to pay our client $25,000.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully settles breach of contract lawsuit filed against our client, for several hundred thousand dollars in damages, for less than $25,000.00, resolving an emotionally/financially draining dispute which plagued our client for 12+ years.

Expanded Description:
Our client entered into various business relationships with the plaintiff beginning in the early 2000’s which culminated in our client allegedly executing a promissory note to plaintiff for $175,000.00. Our client’s alleged failure to comply with the promissory note terms resulted in the plaintiff constantly threatening litigation/collection actions over the last decade. Eventually, the plaintiff filed a breach of contract lawsuit against our client claiming $200,000.00 in alleged damages, including accrued interest on the promissory note. Molosky & Co.’s aggressive and forward leaning approach appropriately conveyed to the plaintiff that the lawsuit would not be a simple/straightforward collections case. Thereafter, Molosky & Co. successfully resolved our client’s exposure to hundreds of thousands of dollars in liability/legal fees for just under $25,000.00, including a full and final release of all claims between our client and the plaintiff. Molosky & Co. also negotiated a manageable payment plan which allowed our client to finally move forward from further uncertainty/constant stress about this decade and a half long dispute.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Property owner sues tenant for breach of contract and collects payment in excess of $23,000.

Expanded Description:
A two-year lease was entered into by a landlord couple and their future tenants. Before the initial two years lapsed, the tenants discontinued paying rent and eventually abandoned the property. Pursuant to the lease, the landlords sent out a notice of unpaid rent and eviction. Upon gaining access to the property, the landlords discovered extensive damage to it. With the assistance of Molosky & Co., our landlord clients sued their tenants for breach of contract. Our clients were granted Judgment, including interest and attorney fees and costs in excess of $23,000. As the tenants did not provide payment of the Judgment within the allotted time, Molosky & Co. filed the necessary documents to freeze/seize the assets of the tenants. As a result of this, tenants immediately paid in full the Judgment amount of over $23,000.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. prevailed at trial in recovering a real estate sales commission paid by our client where the broker improperly inflated the commission.

Expanded Description:
Our client entered a listing agreement with a real estate broker to sell our client's property. The agreement contained an incentive that doubled the commission if an associate realtor sold the property, with the expectation that the real estate broker would nonetheless exercise good faith and loyalty to our client. The eventual buyer visited the real estate broker's website after seeing a "For Sale" sign at the property. The website listed the real estate broker as the sole contact for the property. The eventual buyer contacted the real estate broker asking for a tour of the property. However, mindful of the incentive, the real estate broker claimed to be too busy and directed the purchaser to an associate realtor. Molosky & Co. sued the real estate broker for breach of contract for purposefully directing the purchaser to an associate realtor in order to receive a larger commission; over a $12,000 difference. After a bench trial conducted over a three-week period, our client received a verdict for a full reimbursement of the disputed commission. The real estate broker paid $15,000 to our client.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
After successfully obtaining a judgment against our client's contractor for inflated costs, Molosky & Co. represented our client through the year's long process of collecting the judgment from the contractor's estate.

Expanded Description:
Our client hired a general contractor to construct, renovate, and finish a living space above our client's garage. After the contractor exceeded the upper estimate for the project by almost $20,000, our client demanded an accounting for the project, which revealed the contractor's improper inflation of costs. Molosky & Co. sued the contractor to recover our client's money, and obtained a Consent Judgment in the amount of $12,700. However, before the judgment was satisfied, the contractor passed away. The contractor's personal estate was insignificant; however, the contractor was a beneficiary in a trust holding valuable real estate. With the economic downturn, the trust had difficulty liquidating the property and distributing funds to the contractor's estate. Molosky & Co. steadfastly communicated with the trust over the course of many years, finally securing full payment for our client, plus interest.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully defended our client against a litany of consumer related claims regarding a boatlift manufactured by our client.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a boat hoist manufacturer. The eventual Plaintiff in this case, a prominent bank president, purchased one of our client's boat hoists from another company. That same company installed the boat hoist for the Plaintiff without requesting our client's involvement. The Plaintiff used the boat hoist for approximately three years during which time the motor failed repeatedly. Our client manufactured and sold many of the same model boat hoists as purchased by the Plaintiff and never encountered this type of problem, leading our client to the conclusion that the boat hoist was used and/or improperly installed. Nonetheless, our client promptly delivered new parts for the boat hoist motor each time it malfunctioned during (and even after) the warranty period. Afterwards, the Plaintiff sued our client alleging a litany of consumer related claims arising from the malfunctioning boat hoist. Molosky & Co. successfully demonstrated that our client complied with all applicable warranties for the boat hoist, which resulted in a favorable case evaluation decision for our client. The Plaintiff rejected the award in favor of trial. After our client prevailed, with the jury finding no cause of action against our client, the court awarded our client attorney fees and costs in excess of $11,000.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. prevailed at trial in recovering amounts due and owing to our client after fully performing under a construction contract yet not receiving payment.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a tile contractor who agreed to stand in for the contractual obligations of another company when that company became unable to perform, with the understanding that our client would submit its invoices to that company. Our client completed the tiling job and submitted invoices for its work. The company that our client assisted billed for the work, received payment in full, yet refused to pay the nearly $10,000 due and owing to our client. Molosky & Co. sued the company on behalf of our client for breach of contract. As a result of the trial in February 2010, our client was awarded over $10,000 for tiling installation, interest, costs, and attorney fees.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Widow receives payment of $2,000 after being railroaded by national door-to-door sales company.

Expanded Description:
For over three years, our client tirelessly cared for her cancer diagnosed husband before he passed. Less than twenty fours after his funeral, our grief-stricken client was approached by two unidentified individuals who proceeded to direct our client into her own home and unpack their product. Realizing she was about to be given a demonstration, our client informed the two individuals that she did not need the product, nor could she afford it after her husband’s passing. Even after repeatedly telling the salespeople she could not afford nor want the product being demonstrated, the salespeople continued to pressure our grief-ridden client to purchase their product. After three hours of coercion, our client simply wanted the salespeople out of her house and signed what she thought was an agreement for the individuals to come back at a later date. What she had signed was an installment contract to purchase the demonstrated product. When our client’s son approached the back door, the salespeople hurriedly exited the front door leaving its product and a copy of a signed installment contract with our client. With the intervention of Molosky & Co., our client kept the product, terminated the installment contract, and collected $2,000 in charges from the sales company.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. prevailed at trial in enforcing our client's right to recover a contractual severance payment from his employer following termination of his employment

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a talented employee who, after years of service, received a compelling offer from his employer's competitor. In order to retain our client, the employer entered an agreement providing our client higher pay and a severance package. Sometime later, the employer sold the company and as part of the transaction, terminated all of its employees, including our client. Nonetheless, the employer failed to pay our client the contractual severance since, in the employer's eyes, our client found a similar position soon after he was terminated, albeit without the protection of a severance agreement Molosky & Co. sued the employer for breach of contract and prevailed in a one-day trial, receiving a judgment for the full amount demanded in our complaint, plus interest. The following day, the employer paid our client in full.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully defended an unsupported claim that our client owed another attorney a sizable referral fee.

Expanded Description:
Our client was an enormously successful trial attorney who represents catastrophically injured individuals. Another attorney allegedly referred a no fault insurance claim to our client, who ultimately settled the matter for a considerable sum, and sued our client for approximately $100,000. Molosky & Co. recognized the opportunistic nature of the claim since the alleged referral fee was unsupported by any agreement and the other attorney had no participation in the lawsuit. We successfully argued that by applying established Michigan law to the facts of the dispute, it was clear that our client did not owe a referral fee because (1) there was not a referral fee agreement, and (2) it is unethical to pay a referral without such an agreement. Confident in our legal preparation, Molosky & Co. rejected a reduced case evaluation award that other attorney accepted in favor of prevailing on the merits at trial. Soon afterwards, during a court ordered facilitation prior to trial, the other attorney dismissed all counts against our client with prejudice.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. guided our clients through the aftermath of a shareholder's resignation for inappropriate conduct and negotiated favorable buyout terms for the shares.

Expanded Description:
Our client's business partner was forced to resign after an employee notified the board of sexual misconduct. The partner resigned and attempted to cash in his shares of the company soon after, as per the agreement signed by all shareholders several years before the incident. The shares were in escrow, and their immediate release would significantly decrease their value. The former partner wanted his compensation quickly and sued our client. Molosky & Co. negotiated a settlement where a portion of the shares would be bought back until they broke escrow and all of the shares were freed up.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Telecommunications company “high-jacks” passcode after our client rightfully terminates its service contract.

Expanded Description:
Our client entered into a contract for the service and maintenance of its communications system. The contract stated it would automatically renew annually unless written notice was provided. Just over a year into the contract, the service of the telecommunications company began to decline. Dissatisfied with the service being provided, our client gave written notice that it would not be renewing its contract for the next year. The telecommunications company retaliated by locking our client out of its own communications system and demanding our client renew its service contract and pay for an additional two years service in advance. Molosky & Co. filed an immediate Complaint and secured the passcode for our client who is now able to manage the communications system that is the lifeline to the success of its business.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully petitioned the court to dismiss a lawsuit against our client, after the plaintiff refused to appear for deposition or produce documents.

Expanded Description:
Our client is a medical doctor that amicably dissolved a partnership with another doctor several years ago. Two identical medical devices purchased from a medical equipment company remained in each doctor’s custody following the dissolution of the partnership. The partnership notified the medical equipment company to cancel the original service agreement on the medical devices. Soon thereafter, our client’s former partner decided to sign a new service agreement. Our client never signed a new agreement, yet the medical equipment company continued to service our client’s machines. Our client attempted to pay that company for the services rendered during service calls, but they refused payment. Once the company realized that our client had not signed a service agreement, they claimed that our client owed approximately $100,000 for the service calls. After filing a Complaint alleging breach of contract, we began an aggressive defense. The plaintiff company refused to produce a company representative for a deposition or produce documents we requested. We filed a Motion for Summary Disposition and got the Complaint dismissed.

breach of contract

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully petitioned the court to dismiss with prejudice a case that accused our client of breaching his construction contract.

Expanded Description:
Our client is a contractor who took on a job to remodel a bathroom. After both parties signed the contract and our client started working on the bathroom, his customers experienced buyer’s remorse and terminated the contract without compensating him fully. These customers then proceeded to sue our client for damaging their bathroom. We argued that our client upheld his end of the contract and did no damage to the bathroom and the court agreed. Molosky & Co. negotiated a dismissal of the suit and protected our client’s name.

foreclosure / bankruptcy / creditor rights

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. assisted a local business owner with foreclosing upon and reestablishing a boating service business, by successfully litigating and resolving all issues in favor of Molosky & Co.'s client.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. successfully represented a local business owner in obtaining ownership and control over an established boating service business and all assets of the business. When amicable pre-litigation efforts to resolve payment of a half million dollar debt failed, an Action for Account Stated and Breach of Contract claim were initiated in Circuit Court. Defendants' attempts to sneak out of their substantial debt obligation through numerous counter-claims were easily overcome, with the matter being successfully resolved in favor of our client, who was able to secure valuable assets, reestablish an ongoing business operation, and monthly cash payments from its debtor.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. obtains over $1.5 million settlement of benefits from a no-fault insurance provider in case filed in out-of-state federal district court after the insurance company claimed our client was not entitled to any No-Fault benefits.

Expanded Description:
Our client was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident in 1977. For more than 3 decades, our client and her family struggled in obtaining help from the insurance company which unjustly placed the burden of our client’s care, recovery and rehabilitation on her elderly mother. Molosky & Co. proactively assisted our client in finding and relocating to an out-of-state care facility which provided appropriate care/accommodations for her injuries and allowed her mother to reside with her. Molosky & Co. also filed a lawsuit in federal district court for the insurance company’s failure to reimburse our client all allowable No-Fault expenses, including the attendant care her mother provided. Molosky & Co. prevailed against the insurance company’s motion for summary disposition which claimed our client was never entitled to No-Fault benefits in the first place, as the alleged “owner” of an uninsured vehicle at the time of her accident (even though our client previously received No-Fault benefits for more than 3 decades!). After protecting (and confirming) our client’s entitlement to future No-Fault benefits, Molosky & Co. secured: (1) a $500,000 payment from the insurance company; (2) a fair/reasonable attendant care rate for future attendant care provided by our client’s family; and (3) a contractual commitment for our client and her family to remain at the care facility.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. obtained $1,161,000.00 in no-fault PIP benefits for a catastrophically injured person through facilitative mediation; $375,000.00 for suitable barrier-free housing modifications, and $131,000.00 annual family provided attendant care payments for the next six years.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. filed a lawsuit for a catastrophically injured person who suffered a traumatic brain injury and paraplegia resulting from a single-car rollover. For several years, the client attempted to negotiate terms for suitable barrier-free housing for his incapacitated loved one. Through vigorous discovery that led to substantial negotiations during facilitative mediation, Molosky & Co. successfully negotiated a settlement for $375,000.00 to provide suitable barrier-free housing and $131,000.00 annual attendant care payments to the caregiver father for the next six years. We also preserved all current and future benefits for our client, particularly in the event of a change in the medical condition of the client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. obtained approximately $630,000 from a no-fault insurance provider that failed to pay our client’s necessary medical benefits following a catastrophic motor vehicle accident that resulted in significant and permanent physical and mental injuries.

Expanded Description:
A catastrophic motor vehicle accident permanently injured our client in 1995. Ever since the accident, our client struggled to support herself financially, as the accident resulted in significant and permanent physical and mental injuries that precluded her from working. Defendant, a no-fault insurance provider, made receiving benefits a nightmare for our client, by constantly denying coverage and delaying reimbursement to cover medical costs. We sued for damages dating back to the date of the 1995 accident. Defendant claimed that the one-year back rule of MCL 500.3145(1) applied to this suit, but we argued that it did not apply to our client because of her inability to comprehend her rights and act on them. MCL 600.5851 allows impaired individuals to disregard the one-year back rule and claim damages from the date of the accident forward, as in our client’s situation. Defendant relented and finally settled the case in facilitation for approximately $630,000: $450,000 for past attendant care and home modifications, and $180,000 for five years of future attendant care. We also preserved payment of all future medical benefits for our client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. obtained over $535,000 in no-fault benefits for catastrophically injured minor, including securing a $450,000 arbitration award for suitable barrier-free housing modifications.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. recently filed a lawsuit against the no-fault insurer of a minor catastrophically injured/paralyzed in a 2010 auto accident. Within months of filing the lawsuit, Molosky & Co. quickly secured payment (with penalty interest) of nearly $30,000 in overdue attendant care which the insurer previously failed/refused to reimburse our client’s family. Thereafter, Molosky & Co. negotiated a retroactive rent increase of $800 per month for the partially barrier-free housing accommodations which our client’s grandparents made available to her. In total, Molosky & Co. secured nearly $55,000 in rent for our client/client’s grandparents. Thereafter, Molosky & Co. secured a $450,000 arbitration award against the no-fault insurer (after negotiating a favorable arbitration framework) to resolve our client’s remaining housing accommodation claim.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully battled an insurance company and obtained over $500,000 in past due No-Fault benefits.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. recently represented a man paralyzed in a 1986 auto accident. Though entitled to No-Fault benefits for his care, recovery or rehabilitation, our client struggled for many years to live independently with little to no help from the insurance company. For over twenty five years he relied on the generosity and help of family and friends. When his health took a sudden downward turn, our client could no longer be independent and needed help. He asked the insurance company for a barrier-free home to accommodate his wheelchair, attendant care due to his drastically reduced ability to care for himself, and a modified van necessary for transportation. The insurance company ignored his needs, and delayed and stalled home modifications. However, our client fought with us against the insurer and on the eve of trial, the insurance company agreed to pay not only a $350,000 payment for past due attendant care and home modifications, but also around-the-clock attendant care, temporary accommodations during construction of a new barrier-free home, and a new van.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co.’s client triumphed over an insurance company and obtained over $475,000 in No-Fault benefits.

Expanded Description:
A horrific auto accident in 2003 forever altered our client’s life. A quadriplegic entitled to No-Fault benefits for his care, recovery or rehabilitation, he requested the insurance company provide a barrier-free home and a necessary modified van. The insurer failed to replace our client’s old van with a new one and let the auto policy lapse, leaving our client an isolated prisoner in a home woefully unsuitable for a person confined to a wheelchair. For over nine years, the indifferent insurance company delayed and stalled home modifications, essentially waiting for our client to die. However, our client had no such plans. Despite numerous medical issues related to his injury, subsequent hospitalizations, and harassment from the insurance company, with our help, he fought back. Our client received not only a $270,000 settlement for home modifications, but also an agreement that the insurance company pay for utilities, maintenance and repair, property taxes, and insurance for our client’s new, barrier-free home. In addition, our client received a brand new modified van ($80,000), fully insured ($10,000), attendant care, and payment of overdue medical expenses (over $97,000).

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Our quadriplegic client sues no-fault insurer for continued delay in providing home modifications and negotiates $410,000 settlement.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a severely injured man when his vehicle crashed into the woods. After undergoing spinal surgery and several months of rehabilitation, our client determined to return home to his wife and three sons. Unfortunately, in its current condition, his home is unsuitable. After four home evaluations and 21/2 years, the insurance company failed to provide home modifications, dragging its feet over design and cost. Molosky & Co. filed a Complaint and after a year of extensive discovery, our client received a settlement of $410,000 for home modifications.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. obtains mid-six figure third party no-fault settlement and payment of all outstanding first-party no-fault benefits.

Expanded Description:
Our clients, a modest retired couple, were on their way home when another driver lost control of his speeding vehicle and crashed into our clients’ lawfully operated vehicle. Molosky & Co. quickly ensured payment of all first party no-fault (“PIP”) benefits owed to our clients for injuries suffered in the crash (which, prior to Molosky & Co.’s involvement, the no-fault insurer refused/delayed paying). Molosky & Co. secured PIP benefits including but not limited to over $12,000 in reimbursement for attendant care, replacement services, and medical mileage provided by/to our clients in the immediate 5 months following the crash. In fact, Molosky & Co.’s persistent/professional interactions with the no-fault insurer resulted in a voluntary increase of over $2.00 per hour for all of the attendant care hours provided to/by our clients and payment of an outstanding/overdue $80,000 hospital bill. Once our clients reached their maximum expected medical recovery, Molosky & Co. expertly secured a mid-six figure settlement with the negligent driver (less than twelve months post-crash), with virtually no costs to our clients.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. obtained over $286,000 in no-fault benefits for client, notwithstanding client’s previously executed settlement agreement with insurance company purportedly releasing all future no-fault home modifications.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. recently represented a woman paralyzed in a 1988 auto accident. Though entitled to no-fault benefits for her care, recovery or rehabilitation, the no-fault insurance company refused to reimburse our client for attendant care services at a reasonable rate even though our client actively supervised/managed her attendant care providers, at a fraction of the commercial agency rate. The no-fault insurance company also refused to make medically necessary home modifications, claiming our client was stuck with the home the insurance company paid to build back in 1990. Molosky & Co.’s aggressive handling of the case resulted in the insurance company paying $75,000 for home modifications in addition to purchasing two new lifts, valued in excess of $52,000, to service our client’s basement. Further, the insurance company agreed (contractually) to increase our client’s attendant care payments by over $22,000 per year. Molosky & Co.’s advocacy also resulted in our client obtaining a new claims adjuster.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Our client, a test driver for a large automobile manufacturer, was severely injured in an accident at a test driving track in 1994. Despite clear evidence of a need for round-the-clock attendant care, the manufacturer and its insurers never informed our client of the benefits to which he was entitled under No Fault insurance. In October 2012, Molosky & Co. negotiated a settlement paying our client $250,000 for past due attendant care benefits, and an agreement to provide 12 hours per day of attendant care in the future.

Expanded Description:
Our client test drove vehicles for a large automobile manufacturer for 22 years. In 1994, our client crashed while traveling 100 m.p.h. on the test track. The air bag, which should have been disabled during test drives, deployed with enough force to severely whiplash our client's head, neck, and back. After the accident, our client suffered extremely debilitating and dangerous dizziness and vertigo, leaving him unable to drive, prone to walking into walls, and vulnerable to falling without warning. Our client required 8 to 16 hours per day of attendant care, primarily provided by his wife. Despite numerous, specific inquiries over the next 14 years, the auto manufacturer and its insurers never told our client he was entitled to attendant care benefits under No Fault insurance. After major surgery in 2008 to repair degenerative damage in his neck and back, our client first saw the words "attendant care" in a pamphlet at the hospital. When he inquired, the auto manufacturer and its insurers still told him he could only have such benefits for the one year prior to his current inquiry. Then he came to Molosky & Co. We took on the insurers and secured $250,000 for our client for the 18 years of past-due attendant care, and we guaranteed he will have 12 hours of paid attendant care for as long as he needs it in the future.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. triumphed after a seven day jury trial for overdue No Fault benefits securing a judgment exceeding $41,000.00. Additionally, on February 28, 2013, the Judge issued his Opinion and Order granting Plaintiff attorney fees of $187,834.25 and costs of $3,860.90, as a result of the insurance company's unreasonable delay of payment.

Expanded Description:
Our client, a barrier free residential contractor, constructed a barrier free home for a man catastrophically injured in an auto accident. Under Michigan’s No Fault Act, an insurance company is obligated to pay for the medically necessary home accommodations. Prior to completion of construction, the catastrophically injured man passed away. Under an Accord and Satisfaction agreement, the insurance company retained ownership of the home and agreed to complete the home construction. Our client completed the work and presented the insurance company with the Certificate of Occupancy and an invoice for final payment due. The insurance company refused to make full payment, presenting a short punch list of items. The additional items were taken care of, but in the meantime, severe weather and heavy rains resulted in an unexpected power outage, flooding of the property and subsequent moisture and mold damage. The insurance company further enlisted the services of our client to perform water abatement/remediation work, and once again, failed to fully compensate our client. Molosky & Co. conducted numerous depositions; prepared multiple discovery requests; reviewed thousands of pages of documents; and argued many motions, including three motions to compel (receiving Court-ordered attorney fees twice). Molosky & Co. prevailed after a seven day jury trial where eighteen witnesses testified and the Court admitted approximately ninety exhibits.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Insurance company refused payment after driver is in an automobile accident and left with a closed head injury.

Expanded Description:
An automobile accident left our client with a closed head injury. Prior to the accident our client was a successful, self-employed, highly motivated, business owner. After filing the lawsuit and conducting discovery, the insurance company acquiesced that our client suffered a closed head injury. This was due to Molosky & Company’s extensive discovery and perseverance in pursuing the insurance company for no-fault benefits payable to the client. Our client received approximately $200,000 for unpaid PIP benefits, attorney fees, and penalty interest.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co obtains $200,000 settlement for client who was injured when home-improvement retailer neglected to properly load flatbed cart and assist customer in maneuvering cart.

Expanded Description:
Our client, a successful business owner, entered a home-improvement retail store to purchase, just that, home improvement supplies. Our client sought out a cart and loaded it with those supplies within reach. A store employee finished loading the cart with inaccessible items. The employee stacked all 640 pounds of building supplies against the cart handrail and proceeded to pull the cart to the checkout line. At this point, the employee left our female client to maneuver/pull the overloaded cart through the checkout process. Mimicking the store employee, our client attempted to pull the cart forward. Due to the imbalanced load, the cart buckled and the cart and supplies cascaded down onto our client’s right leg, pinning her to the ground. Molosky & Co. filed suit for economic and non-economic damages suffered as a consequence of the retail store’s negligence. The retailer paid our client $200,000 for pain and suffering.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
A driver disregarded a stop sign and crashed into a successful business owner who was traveling at approximately 50 mph.

Expanded Description:
Our client, a successful entrepreneur, was traveling through an intersection at 50 mph when the driver of another vehicle failed to stop at the posted stop sign and a classic T-bone collision of two vehicles occurred. Our client was unable to work in or manage her own business. Molosky & Co. filed suit to aid our client in collecting the economic and non-economic damages she suffered as a result of the other driver’s negligence. After conducting extensive discovery and tirelessly pursuing the driver and the owner of the vehicle, Molosky & Co was able to reach an agreement, in which, our client received $185,000 for loss of income and pain and suffering.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Our health care provider client received over $175,000 in full payment for treatment of a young man involved in a severe automobile accident.

Expanded Description:
Our client provided treatment to a young man left paralyzed from an automobile accident. Upon invoicing the man’s health insurance, payment was received in full. Shortly thereafter, the same insurance company recalled the payment citing the automobile insurance to be the primary payer. Both insurance companies cited each other as the responsible party from which to seek payment. Molosky and Co. filed suit against the no-fault insurance company because as a no-fault insurance carrier, an individual is entitled to benefits for care, recovery, or rehabilitation resulting from an injury in an automobile accident. Upon our filing the Complaint against the insurance company, our client received full payment, together with penalty interest and our attorney fees of over $175,000 for the care that was provided.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Our healthcare provider client received payment of $170,000 from no-fault insurance company for care of automobile accident victim.

Expanded Description:
Our client, a health care provider, sued a no-fault insurance company for non-payment of services provided to a severely injured man in an automobile accident. After exhaustive discovery by Molosky & Co., the health care provider received payment of $170,000 for no-fault benefits improperly withheld for attendant care provided for their patient.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. sues no-fault insurance company and negotiates payment for services performed by health care client.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. recently filed suit on behalf of our health care client for nonpayment of invoices for services provided to an automobile accident victim. The no-fault insurance company unsuccessfully argued that the injuries of the accident victim were pre-existing and therefore, not responsible. Molosky & Co. was able to obtain a favorable settlement for its client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
An insurance company refused payment for the medical expenses of a homeless woman hit by a semi.

Expanded Description:
A homeless woman was hit by a semi while crossing the highway and suffered serious injuries. The hospitals where she was treated were not paid by the insurance company responsible for the expenses. Molosky & Company filed suit on behalf of the hospitals for their past due medical services unpaid by the no-fault insurance provider. Due to Molosky & Company’s efforts, the entire past due hospital bills, approximately $102,000, was obtained in payment of past due no-fault benefits.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
No-fault insurance company refuses payment to health care provider citing insured’s lack of Michigan domicile.

Expanded Description:
Our health care client provided services to the victim of an automobile crash. The no-fault insurance company refused payment arguing that the insured did not maintain a domicile in the state of Michigan. Molosky & Co. filed suit on behalf of our client to collect payment for the unpaid medical bills. The Court granted our Motion for Summary Disposition and the insured immediately paid the entire $83,000 past due account to our client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
An insurance company refused to pay our client’s no fault benefits, including medical and immediately needed surgery expenses, wages lost, replacement services, and attendant care. Molosky & Co. filed a complaint against the insurance company on several counts and ultimately settled out of court for a mid-five-figure sum.

Expanded Description:
Our client was involved in a rear-end motor vehicle accident that caused severe and debilitating injuries, specifically to his back, shoulders, neck, arms and head. These injuries hampered our client’s ability to continue his career in professional boxing and his ability to perform even simple motions such as lifting and bending. For nearly two years, our client’s insurance company denied our client’s claim for benefits. Our client needed immediate shoulder surgery, so Molosky & Co. sued the insurance company for our client’s no-fault benefits and negotiated an immediate payment for the surgery, all future medical benefits, and a significant five-figure payment for all past due benefits, including all of our attorney fees and costs.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Rider on horseback injured when horse struck by emergency vehicle. Insurance company sought to manipulate benefits.

Expanded Description:
Our client was severely injured when, a driver of a vehicle in a medical emergency struck the horse she was riding, killing the horse, and causing extensive injuries to the client including paralysis. The insurance company attempted to force our client into accepting less attendant care in exchange for paying for overages caused by the contractor for her home modifications. Molosky & Co. filed suit for denied/unpaid attendant care monies. As a result of aggressive action by Molosky & Co., a facilitation settlement resulted in $45,000 for back attendant care and an agreement to choose a mutual occupational therapist to assess our client’s home. The insurance company also agreed to pay for 4 hours of daily attendant care until completion of the assessment.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Durable medical equipment supplier receives payment of over $35,000 from no-fault insurance company.

Expanded Description:
A wheel-chair bound man with cerebral palsy was injured after falling from his vehicle lift. As a result of the accident, certain durable medical equipment became necessary. Our client, a DME supplier met those needs by providing the prescribed equipment. When invoiced by our client, the no-fault insurance company denied and delayed payment for the equipment citing the items were not related to the accident. With the intervention of Molosky & Co., our client received over $35,000 in payment for the equipment provided.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
No-fault insurance company pays durable medical equipment provider approximately $34,000 in denied payments.

Expanded Description:
As the result of an automobile accident, a woman suffered accidental bodily injuries. Due to no insurance being available, the accident victim was assigned to a no-fault insurance company through the Michigan Assigned Claims Facility. Under this assumption, our DME client provided the necessary medical products, services and accommodations to its client. Upon invoicing the insurance company, payment was improperly withheld. Molosky & Co. filed suit against the no-fault insurance company and collected payment, including penalty interest and attorney fees over $34,000.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. sues no-fault insurance company for denied benefits and collects approximately $33,000 for client.

Expanded Description:
Our client’s three year old granddaughter sustained catastrophic injuries while riding in the backseat of her grandparents’ car. As a result of the accident, the victim requires barrier-free accommodations for care, recovery, and rehabilitation. To provide this care for her granddaughter, our client moved out of her home and into an apartment. Our client then submitted invoices for rent expense, an allowable benefit under the no-fault act, to the insurance company. The insurance company denied payment for the rent expense as invoiced, quoting our client a much lower rate. However, the insurance company failed to reimburse our client at this new rate. Molosky & Co. filed suit, aggressively pursuing the insurance company collecting approximately $33,000 in unpaid benefits, attorney fees, and penalty interest for its client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. collects $25,000 from no-fault insurer in payment for services provided by health care provider client.

Expanded Description:
A man was severely injured and suffered paralysis in a motor vehicle accident. Prior to the accident, the man was an avid outdoorsman, hunter, and fisherman. Our client, a medical supply company, provided the man with power wheelchairs, including an all-terrain outdoor power wheelchair which allowed the man to safely return to his pre-accident activities. Upon billing for these services, the no-fault insurance company made a partial payment to our client (alleging the full amount our client charged for this medically necessary equipment was unreasonable), leaving an outstanding balance of approximately $15,000. Molosky & Co. successfully recouped the $15,000 balance and also negotiated an additional $10,000 in attorney fees as part of the settlement with the no-fault insurance company.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Durable medical equipment provider receives payment of over $21,000 from no-fault insurance company.

Expanded Description:
Our client, a durable medical equipment supplier, sued a no-fault insurance company for non-payment of supplies provided to an automobile accident victim. After filing suit, Molosky & Co. collected over $21,000 in payment of improperly withheld no-fault benefits for its client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Automobile accident victim receives policy limit from third-party no-fault insurance company.

Expanded Description:
Our client was stopped at a traffic light when a distracted driver crashed into the vehicle behind our client. The momentum from the impact of the crash drove this vehicle into our client’s vehicle causing our client to sustain multiple injuries. After several months of Molosky & Co.’s pursuit of the third-party no-fault insurance company, our client received payment of the wrongful driver’s full insurance policy available.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Hospital sues no-fault insurance company and collects for services provided.

Expanded Description:
Our health care provider client performed surgery on an automobile accident victim. Since the patient informed our client that the injuries were the result of a motor vehicle accident, our client billed the no-fault insurance carrier. The insurance company denied payment asserting the patient had redeemed Worker’s Compensation benefits relieving the insurance company’s obligation to pay no-fault benefits. Under the Workers’ Disability Compensation Act, if an injured worker redeems the WDCA case, the no-fault insurer is entitled to offset all workers’ compensation benefits available, regardless of the redemption amount. However, the no-fault insurer is still responsible for any benefits in excess of worker’s compensation requisite payments. Molosky & Co. relentlessly pursued the insurance company and collected payment for services rendered by our client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Healthcare provider sued no-fault insurance company for unpaid services to company’s policyholder.

Expanded Description:
Our health care provider client sued a no-fault insurance company for non-payment of services provided to permanently injured man following an automobile accident. The no-fault insurance company failed to pay for attendant care services rendered to a catastrophically injured man. Molosky & Co. successfully sued and collected payment, including penalty interest and attorney fees of approximately $14,000.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. sued a no-fault insurance company for withholding payment of services provided by our health care provider client to a man left paralyzed after an automobile accident.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. recently represented a health care provider that rendered services to a victim of an automobile accident. Upon providing reasonably necessary services to this severely injured man, our client invoiced the no-fault insurance company. Although the insurance company knew the injuries were a result of the automobile accident, it withheld payment to our client. Molosky and Co. filed suit against the insurance company and was able to award our client with full payment, together with penalty interest and our attorney fees of approximately $14,000.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. obtains full resolution of No-Fault providers’ claims for reimbursement against No-Fault insurance carrier which improperly delayed/denied tens of thousands of dollars in payment for over 9 months.

Expanded Description:
Our clients are 3 No-Fault medical service providers (Attendant Care Agency, Case Manager, and Occupational Therapist) who provided services to a No-Fault insured for her care, recovery, and/or rehabilitation. The No-Fault insurance carrier abruptly stopped paying for all No-Fault benefits, purportedly based on the insurance adjustor’s “hunch” the underlying medical diagnosis supporting the claim was invalid. Thereafter, the No-Fault insurance adjustor refused to reimburse our clients for their services pending the scheduling and completion of an independent medical evaluation of the insured, which still had not been completed 9 months later. Within 1 week of receipt of Molosky & Co.’s demand letters, the No-Fault insurance carrier agreed to pay our demand in full, without any further expense or inconvenience to our clients.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Durable medical equipment provider receives payment of over $13,000 in denied no-fault payments.

Expanded Description:
As the result of an automobile accident, a man sustained bodily injuries. Our DME supplier client provided the necessary medical products, services and accommodations to its client. Upon invoicing the no-fault insurance company, payment in full was denied. Molosky & Co. filed suit against the no-fault insurance company and negotiated payment in full of over $13,000 for its client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. collects $13,000 from no-fault insurer in payment for services provided by health care provider client.

Expanded Description:
A 15 years old boy was struck by a car while riding a bicycle. The boy suffered lifelong catastrophic injuries as a result, including quadriplegia. Our client, a medical supply company, provided the now-man with medically necessary products and services related to his auto accident injuries. Upon billing the man’s no-fault insurance company for these products and services, the insurance company made a partial payment to our client, denying the balance for reasons including that our client provided products and services which were allegedly “not reasonable and necessary for the injured-man’s care, recovery, or rehabilitation,” as required under Michigan’s No-Fault Insurance Act. After filing a lawsuit on our client’s behalf, the no-fault insurance company initially offered $0.00 during a Court ordered facilitation. However, Molosky & Co. was persistent and aggressive, ultimately collecting $13,000 from the no-fault insurance company for our client’s services.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. sues no-fault insurance company for denied payment to its health care provider client and collects over $10,000.

Expanded Description:
Our client provided case management services to the victim of a motor vehicle accident. At this time, the no-fault insurance company confirmed with our client that it would be responsible for the payment of claims. Four months after the automobile accident, the no-fault insurance company, in writing, still confirmed that it would be the administrator for the claims. However, when our client submitted invoices for payment of services, the insurance company refused payment citing the policyholder had discontinued coverage four days prior to the accident. Molosky & Co. filed suit against the no-fault insurance company for misrepresentation and has collected over $10,000 in payment for our client.

Capsule Summary:
Health care provider collects over $10,000 in payment from no-fault insurance company.

Expanded Description:
Our health care provider client provided services to a man injured in an automobile accident. Upon invoicing the no-fault insurance company, payment was denied. Molosky & Co. filed suit and collected over $10,000 in payment of denied no-fault benefits for its client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Health care provider collects over $9,000 from no-fault insurance company.

Expanded Description:
Our health care provider client sued a no-fault insurance company for non-payment of services provided to a woman severely injured in an automobile accident. The no-fault insurance company failed to pay for the medically necessary/prescribed services rendered to this catastrophically injured woman. Molosky & Co. successfully collected payment in full of over $9,000 for its client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. collects $8,500 from no-fault insurer in payment for services provided by health care provider client.

Expanded Description:
A woman was severely injured when the driver of a semi-truck jack-knifed, crossed into the oncoming lane and smashed into her car. After spending five weeks in a coma and another eight months in a neurological rehabilitation center, attendant care and case management services were prescribed. Our client provided the necessary case management services to its client. Upon billing for these services, the no-fault insurance company refused payment to our client alleging case management services were not necessary and disputing the amount billed by our client. At the request of the insurance company, two different independent medical examinations were completed. Both physicians supported the current treatment of case management services. As to overbilling, our client’s rates are similar to those in area. With the assistance of Molosky & Co., our client sued the no-fault insurance company and collected $8,500 for its services.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
With assistance from Molosky & Co., our health care provider client sued a no-fault insurance company for receipt of denied services.

Expanded Description:
A passenger of a vehicle was left in critical condition following the collision of two vehicles. As a result of the no-fault insurance carried by the vehicle owner, he is entitled to reasonably necessary products, services and accommodations for his care, recovery, or rehabilitation. Our client, who offers these types of services to injured individuals, provided the man with such care and billed the no-fault insurance company for payment. The insurance company, in turn, made a partial payment to our client for its services and denied the balance. Molosky & Co. was persistent in its pursuit of the insurance company and was able to acquire full payment of $8,500 for our client.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. collects $6,500 from no-fault insurer in payment for services provided by health care provider client.

Expanded Description:
Our client is a Northern Michigan-based case management services company which provides state-wide case management services for catastrophically injured no-fault patients. Our client invoiced a no-fault insurance company approximately $7,900 for case management services (including travel time and mileage) for services provided to a patient in Southeastern Michigan. The no-fault insurance company originally refused to reimburse any amount of our client’s invoices claiming they were neither reasonable nor necessary, and were allegedly exorbitant. However, after filing a lawsuit on our client’s behalf and taking a pro-active aggressive posture throughout the pre-trial stage of the lawsuit, Molosky & Co. quickly secured a $6,500 settlement payment from the insurance company, saving our client from the time/expense/uncertainty of a jury trial.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully represented our catastrophically injured client after his insurer refused to pay No Fault benefits.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. served as co-counsel in a No Fault lawsuit filed on behalf of our client, a young man who was catastrophically injured (quadriplegic with significant closed head injury) in an auto accident. Our client's insurer denied coverage based on a technicality in his father's insurance contract that was irrelevant to the accident. This young man needed tens of thousands of dollars for hospitalization and critical care, but the insurance company weaseled their way out of paying our client the claim money he deserved as an insured individual. We sued for breach of contract, common law fraud and misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, common law silent fraud, violation of Michigan Consumer Protection Act, estoppel, violation of Unfair Trade Practices Act, conspiracy and fraud, and exemplary damages. Molosky & Co. helped our client receive all the money needed to pay for his hospitalization and care through the recovery and rehabilitation process.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
In wake of the Admire decision, Molosky & Co. successfully negotiates Transportation Purchase Agreement with No-Fault insurance carrier for “base” purchase price of van plus the cost of aftermarket modifications.

Expanded Description:
Our client is a catastrophically injured auto accident victim who suffers from paraplegia. She previously obtained a modified van through her No-Fault insurance carrier years before Admire v Auto-Owners Insurance Co, 494 Mich 10 (2013) was decided. Notwithstanding the Michigan Supreme Court’s Admire decision (which held a No-Fault insurance carrier not responsible for reimbursing the base cost of a to-be modified vehicle), Molosky & Co. secured No-Fault reimbursement for the purchase of our client’s van, plus the cost of after-market modifications specific to our client’s injuries. Molosky & Co. further negotiated language in our client’s Transportation Purchase Agreement preserving her claims for additional transportation benefits beyond the operational lifespan of the new, modified van.

purchase and sale agreements

Capsule Summary:
A business floundering with financial issues is purchased by the former seller for pennies on the dollar.

Expanded Description:
Through Molosky & Co.’s aggressive and vast financial expertise in acquisitions, they were able to assist a client in the re-acquisition of a business previously sold for an eight-figure amount for pennies on the dollar (low six-figures), allowing the business owner to restore the business to its former success.

purchase and sale agreements

Capsule Summary:
Business purchased by local resident.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Company assisted a client in acquiring an ongoing bookstore. Molosky & Co.’s expertise in drafting and closing on the Purchase and Sales Agreement involving the sale of assets, building lease, and accounts receivable/payable resulted in a positive business potential for both parties.

commercial insurance

Capsule Summary:
Insurance company sued its policyholder based on “pollution exclusion” clause.

Expanded Description:
An insurance company sued its client, a plumbing and heating contractor, denying coverage resulting from an alleged carbon monoxide leak, insisting that the “pollution exclusion” of the policy applied. Molosky & Co. vigorously fought back for the contractor on the grounds that the contractor would never purchase a policy that would not cover its plumbing and heating business under a “pollution exclusion” policy. Molosky & Co. prevailed on its motion for summary disposition, and the insurance coverage applied.

Construction Liens and Disputes

Capsule Summary:
Our client's dream home turned into a nightmare, with extensive delays and construction defects. The construction company recorded a massive lien against our client's property, holding up loan funding needed to finish the construction and repair the damages. Molosky & Co. successfully obtained an immediate injunction to remove the lien, and the court ruled that the lien was illegal, awarding damages including our costs and attorney fees.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co.'s client entered a contract to build his dream home, only to have construction delayed for months, and then to suffer through one construction problem after another. The client then discovered the company named as his builder never had a builder's license during the construction of his home. He demanded that the company leave his property, so that he could try to repair the defects and finish the construction on his own. The company responded by filing a six-figure lien against our client's property, preventing our client from obtaining loan funds needed to fix the problems. Molosky & Co. obtained an immediate injunction removing the lien, and then won on Slander of Title and Violation of Construction Lien Act claims, entitling our client to damages and the recovery of costs and attorney fees.

settlement agreements

Capsule Summary:
Our client's condominium unit suffered extensive damages in a flood caused by the condominium association's failure to properly handle the vacant unit above our client's unit. Our client sued the association to recover damages not covered by our client's own insurance company. Molosky & Co. not only negotiated a large settlement with the association, but also defended our client against his own insurance company's claim that they were entitled to take all the money.

Expanded Description:
Our client's condominium unit was flooded when frozen pipes burst in the vacant unit about our client's unit. The pipes froze and burst because the condominium association had not properly looked after the vacant unit, allowing high winds and freezing cold air to drop the unit's temperature. Our client had property insurance, but his insurer only agreed to pay a portion of all the damages he suffered. Our client sued the condominium association to recover the rest of his damages, and Molosky & Co. battled the association for two years, digging through thousands of documents in moldy boxes and buried file cabinets, to find the proof of what happened in the vacant unit. When Molosky & Co. was poised to recover a substantial amount from the association, our client's insurance company stepped in and tried to claim the recovery as their own. Molosky & Co. stopped them, negotiating a final settlement that covered our client's damages and our attorney fees.

trademark / trade secret

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. routinely and successfully defends our client’s highly popular custom car show from trademark infringement.

Expanded Description:
Our client, a successful custom car show producer, experiences trademark infringement in a variety of ways on a continuing and ongoing basis. Molosky & Co. continuously contacts infringing third parties and successfully requests that they cease and desist their unauthorized use of our client’s trademark. Most recently, Molosky & Co. prevented an auto show from using our client’s trademark by circumventing the unresponsive promoter and contacting the nationally known venue directly. We warned the venue that their affiliation with the promoter subjected both the venue and the promoter to liability as long as the promoter insisted on violating our client’s trademark. The venue promptly notified the promoter that it would not conduct business with the promoter until it complied with Molosky & Co’s cease and desist letter. Needless to say, Molosky & Co. successfully defended our client’s trademark.

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. resolved a property dispute where the legal description in the deed to our client’s property did not “close” due to an errant legal description.

Expanded Description:
Our clients intended to sell their lakefront property, but discovered that the legal description set forth in their deed to the property did not properly close. The legal description in the deed affected a significant amount of lakeshore frontage between our client and their neighbors. Molosky & Co. contracted a surveyor and submitted a correction to the legal description for both our client and their neighbors to discuss. Since the corrected legal description also had a portion of the neighbor’s driveway lying on our client’s property, Molosky & Co. helped negotiate a driveway easement.

settlement agreements

Capsule Summary:
Our client is an insurance broker that separated from his former employer, but needed a settlement agreement to solidify the terms of his departure from the firm. Molosky & Co. drafted the settlement agreement and ensured that our client will receive proper compensation for his contributions to his previous employer.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. drafted a settlement agreement for our client who had recently left his former employer. Our client was personally responsible for servicing many of his former employer’s clients and believed he should receive compensation in the event that his former clients decided to renew their contracts. Molosky & Co. included stipulations in the settlement agreement allowing our client to act as an independent contractor for his former employer and receive compensation for future client renewals.

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully sued to enforce the terms of a lake access easement crossing our client's property, thus restricting the back lot owners to a single boat and dock.

Expanded Description:
Our clients owned a multimillion-dollar home within a site use condominium development on the shores of Round Lake in Charlevoix. As is common in Michigan, the properties were once part of a larger parcel and through various transactions over the years, a narrow access easement was established over a portion of each of our clients' property for certain back lot owners. Over the years, the back lots were further divided and the number of back lot owners seeking the use the easement increased, with each owner wanting a boat slip and boat. The increased use led to considerable disagreement culminating in a lawsuit and consent judgment that prohibited the installation of more than one dock and boatlift, and the mooring of more than one boat on the easement. Nonetheless, the back lot owners proceeded to install an expansive dock that could accommodate no fewer than 5 large boats, kayaks and other water toys and accessories. On behalf of our clients, Molosky & Co. filed suit against the back lot owners seeking declaratory and injunctive relief restricting the back lot owners' use of the easement to a single boat and a single dock. We prevailed following a bench trial, with the court ordering that the back lot owners are permanently enjoined from installing more than one dock, boatlift, or shore station.

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully sued to enforce our client's riparian boundary lines, permanently protecting our client's right to ample room for a dock, shore stations and boats.

Expanded Description:
During the winter of 2006, our client purchased a home with approximately 65 feet of waterfront footage on a cove in Lake Charlevoix. The neighbors on either side of our client owned significantly less waterfront footage. Early the next spring, to our client's dismay, the neighbors installed their docks intruding onto our client's bottomlands, violating our client's riparian rights and preventing our client from installing a dock. After our demand that the neighbors move their docks was ignored, Molosky & Co. sued for trespass, nuisance in fact, and quiet title. Following extensive discovery, including no less than four expert surveyors, we reached an agreement establishing surveyed riparian boundary lines that required the neighbors to substantially and permanently move their docks away from our client's property. Molosky & Co. recorded a final drawing reflecting the same with the Register of Deeds. Our client's right to ample room for a dock, shore stations and boats is now permanently protected.

foreclosure / bankruptcy / creditor rights

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully assisted our client with the unpleasant foreclosure process.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. advised our client during a multimillion-dollar foreclosure process by acting as intermediary between our client and the mortgage company. Following foreclosure, the mortgage company repeatedly contacted our client in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. At our request, the mortgage company ceased all further contact with our client.

franchises / antitrust

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. acted as co-counsel and recovered $1.5 million for our franchisee clients who based upon the Franchisors wrongful conduct and proscribed actions.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. acted as co-counsel for a case involving 30 plaintiffs and Defendant company that sold franchisees rust proofing and detailing chemicals and products. Defendant stated its goals were to offer franchisees competitive prices, uniformity, quality, and technical and administrative support. On the contrary, Defendant imposed high royalties, unfair mark-ups, and required franchisees to purchase only Defendant's products. Defendant failed to disclose the sale of its chemical plant including all formulas, patents, recipes, and developing technology and at the same time, allowed a tooling patent to lapse. Defendant subsequently acquired products from a secondary supplier and represented its now renamed product to be the same. However, the product was inferior and caused numerous problems including equipment failure, product failure, and adverse health effects on franchisee employees. Defendant developed a third product it also claimed was identical to the first product. Despite franchisee's expressed health and safety concerns, Defendant continued the product and added additional fees, increased royalties and cost mark-ups, increased insurance costs, imposed further restrictions, and removed guaranteed territory provisions. Franchisees sued Defendant for violation of Franchise Investment Law, Breach of Contract, Antitrust Violations, Fraud, Negligence, Breach of Product Liability, Breach of Express or Implied Warranty and Fitness for a Particular Purpose. After three weeks arbitration, our client received an award of nearly $1.5 million.

Construction Liens and Disputes

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully recovered over $40,000 for our client after his homebuilder improperly constructed a master bedroom chimney.

Expanded Description:
Our client hired an architect to design an extraordinary residence on the shores of Lake Charlevoix. After months of planning and design, our clients put the project out to bid. Construction began soon after choosing the winning bid; however, the contractor's failure to properly estimate the project resulted in numerous delays and increased costs. Following our client's retirement, the home became his full-time residence. It was after that time that our client discovered a dripping sound inside the master bedroom chimney; a 30-foot tall, field stone tower sealed with a custom stucco cap. Proper investigation revealed that the contractor failed to install a vapor barrier between the fieldstone and sheathing, causing widespread damage and requiring the chimney to be completely rebuilt at a substantial cost. The contractor's insurer first offered our client $1,000 in full settlement of the claim and then, following the expiration of a statute of limitations, refused to cover our client's loss at all. Molosky & Co. filed suit on behalf of our client, successfully defeated the insurer's statute of limitations argument and ultimately obtained a settlement payment for our client in excess of $40,000.

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully and quickly dismissed a potential plaintiff's baseless malpractice lawsuit against our client, a physician and his corporate entity, on two separate occasions.

Expanded Description:
Our client was sued for medical malpractice by Plaintiff seeking monetary damages for prescription of harmful drugs, damage due to improper treatment, lost income, lab and doctor fees, and undue stress and depression. The self-represented Plaintiff further requested that Defendant be responsible for staffing and training physicians for a free clinic, educating the public, and conduct cure research. Plaintiff failed to file a notice of intent and an affidavit of merit, as required by statute. The affidavit of merit must be signed by a physician, and therefore provides a barrier to baseless malpractice lawsuits. The Court promptly granted our motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's lawsuit against our client. Plaintiff subsequently filed a second and nearly identical complaint, this time guised as a negligence action rather than malpractice action in order to avoid the requirement of filing an affidavit of merit. Once again, Molosky & Co. filed for summary disposition and requested sanctions for a frivolous action. The Court granted our motion and although inclined to sanction the Plaintiff, the Court granted our request to simply preclude the Plaintiff from re-filing an action without representation by an attorney or posting of a security bond.

commercial insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully recovered over $20,000 for our client from its insurer for commercial equipment that failed.

Expanded Description:
Our client produces high quality wood products. Crucial to our client's operations are its high capacity vacuum kilns. While drying a large batch of bird's eye maple, our client's main kiln malfunctioned, trapping the entire batch inside. In order to save the wood (valued in excess of $30,000), our client tore open the kiln. Unfortunately, the fire destroyed the kiln. For over a year after the loss occurred, our client made no progress with convincing its insurer to pay for the kiln. Molosky & Co. reviewed the policy for all applicable coverage, researched the cost of replacement kilns and presented our client's claim to the insurer for prompt payment. After only two months, our efforts resulted in our client promptly receiving payment from its insurer for the upper-range replacement cost for a new kiln, plus incidental costs.

wrongful death

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully represented our clients whose daughter was killed by a negligent semi-truck driver. Confidential settlement.

Expanded Description:
A recklessly speeding semi-truck driver struck the car of a teenager resulting in her untimely death. Molosky & Co. represented her family who sued the truck driver's company for numerous violations under the Michigan Wrongful Death Act and Michigan No Fault Act. Our extensive preparation led to a confidential settlement fifteen months after the accident. The family was able to avoid extended litigation and deal with their emotions due to our swiftness and expertise in handling this tragic matter.

no fault insurance

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. prevailed at trial in recovering amounts due to our client under Michigan's No Fault Act after an insurance company refused to pay for transportation services our client provided to its catastrophically injured insured.

Expanded Description:
Our client operates a transportation company serving catastrophically injured individuals. After providing transportation services related to the care, recovery and rehabilitation for an individual who was catastrophically injured in a motor vehicle accident and qualified for Personal Injury Protection benefits through a no fault insurance policy, our client submitted its invoices to the insured's insurance company. Asserting an array of inconsistent positions ranging from the payment was already made through a prior settlement to the transportation services were not compensable under the No Fault Act, the insurer refused to pay our client. Molosky & Co. sued the insurer on behalf of our client and following a two-day jury trial our client prevailed on all counts.

derivative action

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully petitioned the court for a special election where our client's board of directors made poor decisions and lost the confidence of the members.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a local Realtor Association with thousands of members who disagreed with the actions of their board of directors. The Association was in a lawsuit with one of its subsidies and in violation of its own agreements and by-laws. We sought, and the court granted, a special election. An overwhelming majority of the members voted the old board out and elected our board to manage the Association. The newly elected board resolved the lawsuit and avoided further litigation.

purchase and sale agreements

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. negotiated on behalf of our client and prepared all necessary documents in connection with our client's sale of a general store with a liquor license.

Expanded Description:
Our client owns a large campground located on the shores of Lake Huron. The campground contains a centrally located general store that serves the needs of its many visitors, including alcohol sales. On behalf of our client, Molosky & Co. negotiated our client's purchase of the general store from its owner, prepared all necessary transaction documents and communicated with the Michigan Liquor Control Commission to ensure compliance with regulations regarding transfer of the liquor license.

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully enforced our client's right to relocate a seasonal highway by user under a prior consent judgment with the county road commission.

Expanded Description:
Our client owns property on a one-way, seasonal road in Northern Michigan. The proximity of the road to our client's property (a beautiful property on top of a large hill with views of the Mackinac Bridge) resulted in frequent trespassing upon the property. Our client petitioned the county road commission to relocate the road away from his property, however, the county road commission refused. The parties ultimately entered a consent judgment that allowed our client to move the road anywhere within the right of way. Afterwards, when our client began to relocate the road, the county road commission refused to abide by the parties' consent judgment, instead raising a series of baseless objections to our client's planned relocation. Some objections, while incorrect, were innocuous, such as requiring a client to apply for a permit even though the relocation was agreed to in the consent order. Other objections were outright misconstructions of Michigan law, including Michigan's highway by user law. On behalf of our client, Molosky & Co. sued the county road commission and ultimately prevailed in establishing our client's right to relocate the road within the right of way, as properly defined in our pleadings and misunderstood by the road commission.

Capsule Summary:
Our client was bought out at an unfair price and Molosky & Co. petitioned for fair compensation.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. successfully petitioned the Michigan Tax Tribunal on behalf of a Michigan corporation to dispute the value of a recent purchase. Molosky & Co. received a Consent Judgment to reduce the assessed value, state equalized value, and taxable value by over $100,000.

foreclosure / bankruptcy / creditor rights

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. assists client with collecting Judgment in excess of $22,000.

Expanded Description:
Our client received an Order for Judgment for $30,000 but was only able to partially collect on the Order. With the knowledge of Molosky & Co., our client was able to pursue the appropriate party, execute on the judgment, and collect the remaining balance of over $22,000.

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully upheld our client's rights to log her property and protected the property from intrusion and misrepresentation on behalf of a local land conservancy.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented a family that owned a beautiful and historic lakeshore property in Leelanau County for generations. A local land conservancy wanted to add the property to its roster of protected properties and orchestrated the purchase of a one-half undivided interest in the property. Thereafter, our client agreed to partition the property with the land conservancy. Our client used the property for agriculture, farming and forestry for generations. Those uses were specifically protected in the partition agreement. Nonetheless, following partition, the land conservancy began to harass our client and interfere with forestry and agricultural activities on the property. Further, the land conservancy published misleading maps and guides that lead to trespassing upon and damage to our client's property. Incredibly, the land conservancy sued our client to prevent the forestry and agricultural activities. On behalf of our client, Molosky & Co. countersued to enforce our client's right to log the property and enjoin the land conservancy's misrepresentations. The parties settled the lawsuit after Defendant modified its signage, maps and guidebooks, and paid our client a monetary award. Of course, the land conservancy also agreed to recognize our client's right to continue logging the property and to give advance written notice, prior to entering onto our client's property.

foreclosure / bankruptcy / creditor rights

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully challenged a bankruptcy trustee's claim that our client received substantial preferential payments, thus preserving our client's hard-earned profits.

Expanded Description:
For years, our client, a mold manufacturer, produced molds worth hundreds of thousands of dollars for an automotive business. During the economic downturn of 2008, the automotive company filed for bankruptcy protection. Shortly thereafter, our client received a letter from the bankruptcy trustee claiming that recent payments our client received from the bankrupt company were preferential payments. The asserted preference payments were a substantial amount of money; money that our client worked hard to earn and could not afford to relinquish. Through our experienced command of the bankruptcy code and careful review of the pattern and history of payments from the bankrupt company to our client, Molosky & Co. successfully demonstrated that the payments were made in the ordinary course of business, and therefore not preferential payments. As a result,our client kept its hard-earned money.

foreclosure / bankruptcy / creditor rights

Capsule Summary:
After identifying discrepancies in our client’s alleged signature on a mortgage, Molosky & Co. gets creditor/mortgagee to voluntarily cancel pending foreclosure proceeding.

Expanded Description:
Our client is co-owner of a million-dollar luxury property. It is undisputed that the co-owner of the property obtained a loan, providing a mortgage on the property as collateral. The co-owner defaulted on the loan and the creditor/mortgagee commenced foreclosure proceedings against our client’s property. The creditor/mortgagee also suggested that our client could be subject to debt collection measures arising from the loan (even though our client never signed any underlying loan). Within days of being retained, Molosky & Co. received verification from the creditor/mortgagee that our client was not personally liable for any amount on the loan. Thereafter, Molosky & Co. quickly discovered a suspicious discrepancy in our client’s purported notarized signature on the mortgage (our client had no recollection of ever executing this document) suggesting that our client never signed it. Of course, without a valid mortgage from our client, the creditor/mortgagee has no right to foreclose our client’s interest in the property. After notifying the creditor/mortgagee of the notary/signature issue and explaining our client’s due recourse for slandering her interest in the property, the creditor/mortgagee voluntarily agreed to cancel the foreclosure proceeding (then just days away) while it further investigated the matter.

Construction Liens and Disputes

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully discharged multiple construction liens from our client's property and obtained our client's early dismissal from a complex lawsuit involving numerous construction lien foreclosure claims.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. represented homeowners in a complicated construction lien lawsuit involving no less than six consolidated cases, five of which sought to foreclose construction liens recorded on our clients' property. Our client fully paid their general contractor, but unbeknownst to them, the general contractor failed to pay the subcontractors who provided services and materials during construction. The subcontractors individually filed suit against the contractor and our clients. We ensured that our client's property interest was safe by filing an affidavit of payment under the Homeowner Construction Lien Recovery Fund and invoking statutory protections thereunder. However, even with no potential liability, our client still faced being a party to a protracted and expensive lawsuit. Working in our client's best interest, Molosky & Co. procured each subcontractor's consent to an order dismissing our client from the lawsuit. Consequently, our client went on with his life while the lawsuit lingered on for years.

Construction Liens and Disputes

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully enforced our client's rights following significant breaches by the builder during construction of our client's home.

Expanded Description:
Our client hired a builder to build a house designed by a prominent architect. Unbeknownst to our client, the builder did not have the experience to build such a magnificent custom home. The builder's lack of experience resulted in significant errors throughout the preliminary stages of construction, which resulted in the architect withdrawing its approval of the project. Afterwards, the builder refused our client's requests for a curative meeting. With the architect's approval withdrawn and no understanding reached with the builder, our client put locks on the house's doors and garage to prevent further construction. The builder then broke the locks and trespassed onto our client's property in order to continue construction. Following this disturbing event and the builder's conviction for trespass and illegal entry, our client promptly terminated their relationship with the builder. The builder sued our client for breach of contract and foreclosure of its construction lien. On behalf of our client, Molosky & Co. filed a countersuit for breach of contract, violation of Builder's Trust Fund Act, fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, assault, promissory estoppel, innocent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, slander of title, breach of warranty, and trespass. Our skilled and decisive representation quickly resolved the dispute when the builder agreed to our client's settlement terms.

Construction Liens and Disputes

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. protected our client's interests in a situation involving unpaid mold invoices.

Expanded Description:
Molosky & Co. filed a mold builder's lien on behalf of client for over $150,000 in unpaid invoices relating to various production molds. Notification of the lien resulted in two separate suits in which the Plaintiff sought payment from several companies, including the company in default. The parties reached a settlement agreement wherein one of the Defendants agreed to remit payments directly to our client as a set off against monies owed to the company in default.

purchase and sale agreements

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. carefully guided our client through the multi-million dollar sale of his company to a private equity investor.

Expanded Description:
Through tireless effort and business acumen, our client built up an exceptional company that attracted private equity investors. Molosky & Co. represented our client in the complex and demanding process of negotiating with the private equity investor and orchestrating a buyout where our client realized a mid eight-figure amount for the sale of his business. Successful completion of the transaction drew upon our years of experience, sound counsel, and skillful craftsmanship in preparing and reviewing the many sophisticated transaction documents required for accurately portraying and protecting our client's interests.

purchase and sale agreements

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. guided our client through the intricate process of buying-out a local competitor while protecting our client's identity where disclosure would terminate the sale.

Expanded Description:
Our client is a world leader in the design and production of bulk material handling equipment. As a result of its exceptional product line, demand outpaced our client's ability to produce its equipment. In need of additional manufacturing space, our client turned its attention to a local business that had for years been used by our client to satisfy surplus orders. Realizing that the owners of the business would not agree to sell to our client, Molosky & Co. assisted our client in an elaborate and ingenious straw-man transaction that resulted in our client acquiring the business along with the much needed expansion in its production capacity. Throughout the month's long transaction we stridently maintained our client's anonymity through nondescript entities and carefully prepared documents. Only after the ink dried on the mid seven-figure closing was our client's identity revealed. Our careful attention to our client's needs fostered the growth and expansion of its business.

purchase and sale agreements

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. represented our client in its purchase of a local business in connection with the competitor's retirement.

Expanded Description:
When the owner of a moving company decided to retire from the business, Molosky & Co. assisted our client in completing the purchase through our experience by providing sound counsel and by preparing all real estate and personal property transaction documents expertly, with entity formations.

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully sued to enjoin a condominium association from removing our clients' hot tubs based upon the association's improper interpretation of its bylaws.

Expanded Description:
Our clients purchased condominiums at an upscale Northern Michigan resort. From the time of their purchases, our clients were clear that they intended to install hot tubs on the back patio of their units, which they did shortly after moving in. Nearly two years after installation, the association informed our clients that it considered our clients' hot tubs a violation of the bylaws and threatened to remove them. Molosky & Co. filed suit on behalf of our clients against the association requesting that the court determine that our clients' hot tubs did not violate the condominium bylaws and enter a permanent injunction to prevent removal of the hot tubs. Following a two-day trial, we prevailed on all counts. Since the association amended its bylaws during the course of litigation to specifically prohibit hot tubs, Molosky & Co. promptly recorded notice of the judgment at the Register of Deeds in order to preserve the rights of our clients and their predecessors in interest in perpetuity.

trademark / trade secret

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. prevented two sets of third parties, including our client's former employees (who are all subject to confidentiality agreements) from improperly utilizing our client's trade secrets.

Expanded Description:
Our client produces specialized equipment. The designs, drawings, methods, inventions, etc., for our client's equipment are highly valuable and closely guarded trade secrets, taking many years and great expense to develop. Consequently, all of our client's employees are required to enter confidentiality agreements. Following termination, certain former employees began competing businesses and began advertising and selling outright copies of our client's equipment, complete with identical drawings, model numbers, specifications, etc. Molosky & Co. sued the third parties for unauthorized trade practices and the former employees to specifically enforce their confidentiality agreements, which precluded the former employees from using our client's trade secrets for any purpose other than our client's benefit. The litigation included seven defendants in two separate cases. Following mediation, court orders now prevent the seven defendants from using our client's unique designs, processes, or trade secrets and required them to destroy or modify their existing products and materials to extricate any element of our client's trade secrets.

trademark / trade secret

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. successfully removed improper advertisements from Google and eBay that infringed upon our client's trade name.

Expanded Description:
Our client holds numerous patents and trademarks related to its business of treating wastewater through microbial remediation. Our client's trade name is valuable intellectual property. Companies producing competing, inferior products attempted to divert business from our client by purchasing Google AdWords using our client's name and posting advertisements on eBay for competing, inferior products using our client's name. As a result, consumers searching for our client's products on Google and eBay were presented with "hits" for misleading and inferior products. Molosky & Co. successfully worked with Google and eBay to prevent the unfair and wrongful advertisements. Our efforts resulted in the prompt removal of the improper advertisements and protection of our client's intellectual property.

trademark / trade secret

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. routinely and successfully defend our client's highly popular custom car show from trademark infringement.

Expanded Description:
Our client, a successful custom car show producer, experiences trademark infringement in a variety of manners on a continuing and ongoing basis. Molosky & Co. contacts numerous third parties and successfully request they cease and desist their unauthorized use of our client's trademark name.

advertisement infringement

Capsule Summary:
Molosky & Co. secures pre-litigation settlement after golf course refuses to pay our client for using the website logos it designed as part of a sales proposal.

Expanded Description:
Our client is a prominent website design company based in Atlanta, Georgia. After successfully revamping the website of a well-known Detroit-area golf course, the golf course’s “sister courses” requested our client create a similar branding proposal to update their websites. The sister courses liked our client’s ideas but were unwilling to front the necessary expenses to implement the proposed services. Approximately 1 year later, our client discovered the sister courses were improperly displaying its logos on their websites. Not only did Molosky & Co.’s aggressive posture result in the sister courses immediately removing the logos from their websites, they also agreed to compensate our client for their unauthorized use of the logos and to pay liquidated damages in the event of additional unauthorized use.

Back to the Top