June, 2025 | Fraser Blog

Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – June 20, 2025

Michigan Court of Appeals Clarifies Enforceability of Flexible Quantity Terms in Auto Supply Contracts

The Michigan Court of Appeals in FCA US LLC v. Kamax Inc. ruled that automotive supply contracts with percentage-based quantity terms like “approximately 65%–100%” satisfy the Uniform Commercial Code’s statute of frauds requirements. The court rejected Kamax’s argument that the percentage-based language was too indefinite to be enforceable, distinguishing the case from MSSC, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co., where no quantity term existed at all.

Why it Matters: This ruling provides important guidance for Michigan’s automotive supply chain by confirming that flexible quantity commitments expressed as percentage ranges remain legally enforceable when supported by consistent performance between the parties.

———

Data Privacy Bill Moves to Senate Floor

This week, the Senate Committee Finance, Insurance and Consumer Protection approved Senate Bill 359, called the “Personal Privacy Data Act,” that establishes consumers’ rights related to the collection and use of personal data.

Why it Matters: The bill is now on the Senate floor for voting. Among the requirements proposed in the bill, a collector of personal data will be required to, “obtain consent from a consumer before processing the consumer’s personal data and provide a privacy notice concerning the purpose of that data processing.” The proposed bill will not apply to State agencies, or collectors of medical data in accordance with HIPAA.

———

Michigan CRA Publishes May ’25 Data: Average Price Increases

Per data released by the Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA), the average retail price for adult-use sale of an ounce of cannabis in May 2025 was $63.17, an increase from $62.23 in April 2025. This is a decrease from May 2024, where the average price was $88.15.

Why it Matters: While the prices of cannabis and cannabis-related products continue to decrease and make consumers happy, growers on the other hand are seeing profits decrease resulting in them seeking ways to halt new licenses to be granted in an effort to steady prices.

———

PCORI Fees Due by July 31, 2025

In Notice 2024-83, the Internal Revenue Service set forth the PCORI amount imposed on insured and self-funded health plans for policy and plan years that end on or after October 1, 2024, and before October 1, 2025.

Why it Matters: Notice 2024-83 sets the adjusted applicable dollar amount used to calculate the fee at $3.47. Specifically, this fee is imposed per average number of covered lives for plan years that end on or after October 1, 2024, and before October 1, 2025. For self-funded plans, the average number of covered lives is calculated by one of three methods: (1) the actual count method; (2) the snapshot method; or (3) the Form 5500 method.

———

Collateral Consequences: How Criminal Convictions Can Jeopardize Your Professional License

When people think about the consequences of a criminal conviction, they typically focus on the immediate penalties: fines, probation, jail time. But licensed professionals—doctors, nurses, lawyers, teachers, real estate agents, and others—the consequences can extend far beyond the courtroom. A criminal case doesn’t just threaten your freedom. If you’re a licensed professional, it can threaten your livelihood.

Why it Matters: Licensed professionals have more at stake than the average person facing criminal charges, but with early legal counsel from an attorney who understands both criminal law and licensing law and a proactive plan, you can minimize the damage and, in many cases, preserve your ability to work. Don’t make the mistake of waiting until your criminal case is over to start thinking about your license. By then, it may be too late. Read more from your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Cannabis Law | Sean Gallagher
Criminal Law | Robert Andretz
Licensing & Regulatory | Robert Andretz

Collateral Consequences: How Criminal Convictions Can Jeopardize Your Professional License

A criminal case doesn’t just threaten your freedom. If you’re a licensed professional, it can threaten your livelihood.

Licensing Consequences

Licensing boards are charged with protecting the public, and they often act swiftly and independently when a licensed professional is charged with or convicted of a crime. In many cases, licensing action is automatic. For example, your license will be summarily suspended if you are a licensed health professional who has been convicted of a felony or even a misdemeanor involving the illegal delivery, possession, or use of a controlled substance. (MCL 333.16233(5))

Even a minor misdemeanor conviction can trigger a licensing investigation. In some professions, simply being charged with a crime—regardless of the ultimate outcome—may prompt disciplinary proceedings.

This is the reality of collateral consequences. You may resolve your criminal matter in court, but that doesn’t mean that you’re in the clear with your licensing board.

When Criminal and Licensing Issues Collide

In my practice, there is often an overlap between criminal law and professional licensing. A nurse is charged with drunk driving. A financial professional faces fraud allegations. A teacher is arrested after a domestic dispute. These cases aren’t just about guilt or innocence—they’re about risk, reputation, and future employment as well.

What may seem like a private matter can quickly become a very public professional issue. Boards may suspend or revoke a license, registration, or certification, impose probation, or require treatment and monitoring. Employers may be notified. Professional reputations can be permanently damaged.

That’s why it’s critical for professionals to treat any criminal matter—no matter how minor it seems—as a serious threat to their ability to work in their chosen field.

Get the Right Legal Help and Get It Early

If you’re a licensed professional facing criminal charges, one of the most important decisions you’ll make is hiring the right lawyer right from the start.

You need an attorney who understands both sides of your problem: the criminal justice system and the licensing system. Too many defense strategies focus only on the criminal case—without considering how a plea, statement, or court outcome might play out before a licensing board.

The reality is that boards don’t always need a conviction to act. They often rely on arrest reports, public complaints, or court filings to initiate investigations, and disclosures made during a criminal case can be used in administrative hearings. A narrowly focused defense can unintentionally put your license at greater risk.

That’s why legal strategy must go hand-in-hand with planning how to preserve your professional license.

Just as important is taking proactive steps that demonstrate rehabilitation and accountability. In many cases, boards look favorably on professionals who engage in treatment programs, seek counseling, obtain character references, or show a track record of reform. Even when wrongdoing has occurred, a well-documented plan of correction and transparency can mean the difference between revocation and a much less serious sanction.

The key is to act early—with the help and guidance of experienced legal counsel—before your board gets involved.

A Criminal Case Can End a Career—But Not If We Can Help It

Licensed professionals have more at stake than the average person facing criminal charges, but with early legal counsel from an attorney who understands both criminal law and licensing law and a proactive plan, you can minimize the damage and, in many cases, preserve your ability to work. Don’t make the mistake of waiting until your criminal case is over to start thinking about your license. By then, it may be too late.

This alert serves as a general summary and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions.

Fraser Trebilcock attorney Robert J. Andretz is an experienced professional licensing attorney with years of experience successfully defending doctors, nurses, and other licensed health professionals across the state of Michigan in professional licensing matters, including professional licensing investigations and Administrative Complaint matters. You can reach him at 517.377.0854 or randretz@fraserlawfirm.com.

Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – June 13, 2025

Supreme Court Eliminates Higher Burden for “Reverse Discrimination” Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that employees claiming workplace discrimination face the same burden of proof regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. The decision overturned the “background circumstances” rule that required straight employees and other majority group members to meet a higher standard when proving discrimination under Title VII.

Why it Matters: This ruling creates a uniform standard for Title VII discrimination cases and may lead to increased reverse discrimination claims in the workplace. Employers should prepare for potential challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, as majority group members can now more easily assert discrimination claims without having to prove unusual circumstances that suggest their employer discriminates against the majority.

———

Right to Withhold Rent for Repairs Bills Head to Senate Floor

Legislators have introduced the “Tenant Empowerment Package” which includes Senate Bills 19 through 22. In the package, it would require landlords to begin repairs on defective appliances or hazardous situations within 24 hours upon written notice from the renter. If the repairs have not started within 24 hours, the renter has the ability to withhold rent until the repairs are done, or they’re able to start repairs themselves, and deduct the costs from their rent.

Why it Matters: The bills would have a direct fiscal impact on the State, local governments, or local court systems. They could reduce evictions for local systems, which would have indirect benefits related to homelessness, productivity, and tax revenue.

———

Michigan CRA Publishes April ’25 Data: Average Price Decreases

Per data released by the Cannabis Regulatory Agency (CRA), the average retail price for adult-use sale of an ounce of cannabis in April 2025 was $62.23, a decrease from $65.14 in March 2025. This is a decrease from April 2024, where the average price was $86.61.

———

Duty to Defend and Indemnify

When an insurer receives a claim, the question of whether it will defend and/or indemnify is easier to answer in some cases than others. When interpreting an insurance policy, there are two questions involved: (1) Does the policy provide coverage?; and (2) If the policy provides coverage, is there an exclusion that negates the coverage?

Why it Matters: Although an insurer may deny coverage and in turn, decline to provide a defense, it should not do so unless it is very clear that none of the allegations are covered under the policy at issue. It is also important for insurers to consider whether the policy language might be governed by the laws of a different state. Read more from your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

———

Ensuring Your Business is Protected Through Copyright

Whether it is a symbol that you use for branding or a formula that makes your product unique, your intellectual property assets need to be protected. Some of the most recognizable forms of intellectual property fall under copyrights, patents, and trademarks.

Why it Matters: A copyright is the exclusive legal protection that covers an original work of authorship, and it can be difficult to enforce your copyright if the work is not registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. Our copyright law attorneys can help you think through the issues and take the actions necessary to ensure your work and business are protected. Learn more.

Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – June 6, 2025

IRS Announces 2026 Health Plan Contribution Limits

On May 1, 2025, the IRS released Revenue Procedure 2025-19, announcing modest inflation-adjusted increases to health savings account contribution limits and other health plan parameters for 2026. Key changes include HSA contribution limits rising to $4,400 for self-only coverage (up from $4,300) and $8,750 for family coverage (up from $8,550), while high-deductible health plan minimum deductibles increased to $1,700 for individuals and $3,400 for families.

Why it Matters: These increases are smaller than previous years’ adjustments, reflecting current inflation trends that directly impact employee benefit planning. Employers should review their 2026 benefit designs and employee communications to incorporate these new limits, ensuring compliance and maximizing tax-advantaged savings opportunities for their workforce.

———

Duty to Defend and Indemnify

Why it Matters: Although an insurer may deny coverage and in turn, decline to provide a defense, it should not do so unless it is very clear that none of the allegations are covered under the policy at issue. It is also important for insurers to consider whether the policy language might be governed by the laws of a different state. Read more from your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.

———

Ensuring Your Business is Protected Through Copyright

———

Michigan Cannabis Exceeds $270 Million in April ’25

Cannabis sales surpassed $270 million in April 2025, via the monthly report from the Michigan Cannabis Regulatory Agency. Michigan adult-use sales came in at $269,957,758.67, while medical sales came in at $515,226.93, totaling $270,472,985.60.

Why it Matters: While the prices of cannabis and cannabis-related products continue to decrease and make consumers happy, growers on the other hand are seeing profits decrease resulting in them seeking ways to halt new licenses to be granted in an effort to steady prices.

———

Gain Peace of Mind Through Life’s Toughest Obstacles

When facing charges of any kind, criminal law experience matters most. You need someone on your side with inside knowledge to provide guidance for a solid defense, and someone who understands the extreme sensitivity of criminal law cases and act in a timely manner to resolve issues.

Why it Matters: Our attorneys have extensive experience representing individuals and businesses in all stages of criminal proceedings. We will keep you informed of your best options and strategies every step of the way, finding a resolution with a foundation that will help you move forward. Learn more.

Related Practice Groups and Professionals

Insurance | Dakota Larson
Intellectual Property | Andrew Martin
Cannabis Law | Sean Gallagher
Criminal Law | Robert Andretz

Duty to Defend and Indemnify

This is a continuing series on navigating insurance coverage issues, stay tuned for more!

When an insurer receives a claim, the question of whether it will defend and/or indemnify is easier to answer in some cases than others.

Background

When interpreting an insurance policy, there are two questions involved: (1) Does the policy provide coverage?; and (2) If the policy provides coverage, is there an exclusion that negates the coverage? Auto Owners Ins Co v Seils, 310 Mich App 132, 146; 871 NW2d 530 (2015). The insured has the burden of establishing the claim falls within the terms of the policy and the insurer has the burden of establishing that an exclusion applies. Id.

“The duty to defend and the duty to indemnify are distinct and separable duties.” Michigan Ed Employees Mut Ins Co v Turow, 242 Mich App 112, 116; 617 NW2d 725 (2000). The duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. Auto-Owners Ins Co v City of Clare, 446 Mich 1, 15; 521 NW2d 480 (1994).

“The duty to defend arises from the language of the insurance contract.” Citizens Ins Co v Secura Ins, 279 Mich App 69, 74; 755 NW2d 563 (2008). “Insurance policies are interpreted like any other contract.” Bridging Communities, Inc v Hartford Cas Ins Co, 345 Mich App 672, 681; 9 NW3d 92 (2023). A court must enforce policy language that is unambiguous. Matouk v Michigan Muni League Liab & Prop Pool, 320 Mich App 402, 409; 907 NW2d 853 (2017). If there is any doubt as to whether a claim against an insured falls within the parameters of coverage under the policy, the doubt must be resolved in favor of the insured. Polkow v Citizens Ins Co of Am, 438 Mich 174, 180; 476 NW2d 382 (1991). An insurance contract is ambiguous when the language is “capable of conflicting interpretations.” Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Michigan v Nikkel, 460 Mich 558, 566; 596 NW2d 915 (1999). See also Farmers Ins Exch v Kurzmann, 257 Mich App 412, 418; 668 NW2d 199 (2003) (stating that language in an insurance contact is ambiguous when it is “subject to more than one reasonable interpretation”). Terms that are not defined in the policy will be given their “commonly used meaning.” Frankenmuth Mut Ins Co v Masters, 460 Mich 105, 113-114; 595 NW2d 832 (1999) (quotation marks and citations omitted). “An insurance policy must be read as a whole in order to discern and effectuate the intent of the parties.” Farmers Ins Exch, 257 Mich App at 418.

“An insurance company will not be held responsible for a risk that it did not assume.” Allstate Ins Co v Fick, 226 Mich App 197, 201; 572 NW2d 265 (1997). “An insurer is not required to defend its insured against claims specifically excluded from policy coverage.” Am Bumper & Mfg Co v Natl Union Fire Ins Co, 261 Mich App 367, 375; 683 NW2d 161 (2004). However, “[i]t is well settled that if the allegations of the underlying suit arguably fall within the coverage of the policy, the insurer has a duty to defend its insured.” Radenbaugh v Farm Bureau Gen Ins Co of Michigan, 240 Mich App 134, 137; 610 NW2d 272 (2000) (quotation marks and citations omitted). This duty applies even if a claim is groundless or frivolous. Am Bumper & Mfg Co, 261 Mich App at 451. An insurer must look beyond the language of the pleadings to determine whether coverage is possible. Citizens Ins Co v Secura Ins, 279 Mich App 69, 75; 755 NW2d 563 (2008). Exclusionary clauses “are strictly construed in favor of the insured.” Auto-Owners Ins Co v Churchman, 440 Mich 560, 567; 489 NW2d 431 (1992).

Conclusion

In sum, although an insurer may deny coverage and in turn, decline to provide a defense, it should not do so unless it is very clear that none of the allegations are covered under the policy at issue. It is also important for insurers to consider whether the policy language might be governed by the laws of a different state. See, e.g., Farm Bureau Ins Co v Abalos, 277 Mich App 41, 45; 742 NW2d 624 (2007) (stating that the court must balance the expectations of the contracting parties and the interests of the states to determine which state law to apply).

This alert serves as a general summary and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions. When it matters in Michigan, we are the trusted legal advisors for businesses and individuals.

Dakota A. Larson is an experienced attorney handling complex liability, coverage, and bad faith claims in multiple lines of insurance and in multiple jurisdictions. You can reach her at 517.377.0872 or at dlarson@fraserlawfirm.com.