Who We Are

Our Lawyers

Meet the lawyers who will be working on your case. With more than 50 years of collective experience, we have much to offer you, including awards, accolades and nominations that cannot be matched.

Our Lawyers

Case Results

Mondelli v. Kendel Homes Corp.

With regard to the Mondellis' appeal, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Drs. Pour and King. This exclusion of evidence was prejudicial error. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow joinder of the claims of the Mondelli family.

In The News

Our Lawyers
in the Media

At Domina Law Group we are fortunate to work on fascinating and compelling legal problems and lawsuits that change laws and affect our country – Media across the US and across the borders agree. Read stories and watch videos of our cases and with our lawyers.

Attorney Referrals

Our firm has a reputation as leaders in complex litigation.

Get the best result possible by partnering with us.

Our legal skills have been utilized in some of the most specialized and complicated cases. These cases were often referred to us by other professionals in the field. We honor and respect lawyers and other professionals who choose to refer complex cases to our law firm.

We have paid millions in fees to our co-counsel. Call us.

Contact Us

Contact Us Today

Send Your Message

Trial is legal surgery, the narrowest specialty, and it requires unique skills. Our clients want our service and hope they never need it again- like surgery.

Michigan Supreme Court Addresses Limitations Issues

An architectural malpractice case provided a setting for Michigan’s Supreme Court to review the state’s statutes of limitations and repose in professional negligence cases. Ostroth v. Warren Regency, GP, LLC (Doc. No. 126859), was decided February 1, 2006. The lower Court’s opinion was reported at 263 MichApp 1 (2004).

The Court had to decide whether Michigan MCL § 600.5839 is only a statute of repose, supplying a shorter limitation period, or both a statute of repose and a statute of limitations. Like the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court adopted the latter position.

Architects provided work on a renovation project. The plaintiff claimed exposure to environmental hazards during the renovation and alleged personal injuries. She filed suit approximately one hundred six (106) weeks after work on the project commenced, but within two (2) years of the time it concluded.

The trial court held the two-year limitations period for malpractice claims at MCL § 600.5805(6) applied. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, and reversed in part initially, holding the six-year limitation period of MCL § 600.5839(1) also applied.

The Michigan Supreme Court granted leave for the parties to appeal and reviewed the legal issue de novo. The Michigan Supreme Court noted MCL § 600.5805(1) provides:

A person shall not bring or maintain an action to recover damages for injuries to person or property unless, after the claim first accrued to the plaintiff or to someone through whom the plaintiff claims, the action is commenced within the periods of time prescribed by this section.

Limitations periods for several kinds of action follow: § 600.5805(6) provides a two-year limitation for malpractice; § 600.5805(10) provides a three-year limitation period for general negligence actions; and § 600.5805 (14) addresses the period of limitations for an action for damages involving a state-licensed architect and improvement to property. The parties disputed which portion of the statute applied.

The special provision concerning architects incorporated a second Michigan statute, § 600.5839(1) which contains a six-year period of limitation against architects that begins to run “after the time of occupancy of the completed improvement, use, or acceptance of the improvement….”

The Supreme Court concluded the six-year limitation period was applicable and held plaintiff’s claims were viable for this reason. The Court noted the legislature has “undoubted” authority “to determine the conditions under which a right may accrue and the period within which a right may be asserted....” The Court concluded § 600.5839(1), therefore, operates as both a statute of limitations and a statute of repose, and, therefore, plaintiff’s claim was timely.

February, 2006
David A. Domina

Domina Law Group pc llo is a firm of trial lawyers. We specialize in complex litigation on a national basis. Our lawyers are ethical, aggressive, and committed to providing spirit and vitality to the judicial system and our client’s legal rights.

Categories: Supreme Court

How Can We Help You?

Tell us about your case.

Send Your Message