By Liz Nass
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform announced its formation on Wednesday focused on two goals: regulations for outside parties funding lawsuits and reviving the "open and obvious" doctrine in premises liability.
The newly formed alliance of legal experts and business groups told reporters that their main goal is to push for policy that restores Michigan to a healthy legal climate they say has been lost in recent Michigan Supreme Court decisions to expand liability.
Zach Rudat, the alliance's director, also director of legal reform at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said recent court rulings and pending litigation in the state undermine fairness and predictability of the legal process.
Advocates for plaintiffs disagree with the group's agenda, saying the effort for fairness and balance is just "a guise."
"Michigan's legal system impacts everyone, even when they don't set foot in the courtroom," Rudat said. "Right now, the average Michigan household pays over $3,000 annually on a trickle down toward tax dollars that families could otherwise spend on groceries, mortgage payments or monthly bills."
Tiger Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, explained that during his tenure at the association, Michigan used to be a state enacting key reforms, but has recently been on the radar for courts working outside of what is appropriate to expand liability, naming Michigan "a judicial hellhole."
Starting in 1999, when a 5-2 conservative majority took hold of the Supreme Court, business groups extolled the state's legal climate following a series of rulings restricting liability. However, starting in 2018, that 5-2 conservative majority has flipped, going from 4-3 conservative to 4-3 liberal to 6-1 liberal this term.
One of the group's efforts is to revivethe "open and obvious" doctrine for defense of premises liability, which shielded business or property owned from injury caused by a hazard that was reasonably visible. It was also used to dismiss meritless claims early in litigation.
This statute exists in 41 states. The Michigan Supreme Court abolished the doctrine in 2023, overturning a 2001 precedent.
Brad Ward, vice president of public policy and legal affairs for Michigan Realtors, said restoring this doctrine would lower costs, liability and "the threat of loss and abuse for property owners."
There is legislation in the House now that could codify the liability doctrine and restore the status quo before the ruling (See Gongwer Michigan Report, August 20, 2025).
Another key issue for the alliance is being spearheaded by Rep. Mike Harris, R-Waterford Township, by introducing HB 5281 to add transparency measures to third-party litigation funding, or when an outside investor finances another person's lawsuit for a cut of the winnings.
The bill would require a funder to register with the state, prohibit funders from influencing how the case is handled, ban "foreign adversaries" from funding Michigan lawsuits and cap funder earnings to protect compensation for the plaintiffs.
"Without oversight, the system has quietly grown into a $15 billion shadow industry that distorts justice," Harris said. "Right here in the state today, a funder can bankroll a lawsuit without anyone knowing – not the judge, not the defendant, sometimes not even the plaintiff themselves. These financiers can influence settlement decisions, drag out litigation and take a hefty portion of the award. It's an unregulated marketplace that invites abuse, and it undermines the confidence in our courts here in the state, and it's not just a fairness issue, it's really a security issue."
Harris said these "are common sense guardrails" and follow suit from states like California and Tennessee that have enacted transparency law on these funding mechanisms.
There are no clear examples of this in the state, Rudat said, because of this lack of transparency. Instead, he pointed to examples across the country like a man in New York who used third-party funders for his lawsuit on the health effects of the 9/11 cleanup effort, didn't read the fine print and lost all his earnings in the suit.
Wendy Block, senior vice president of business advocacy at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said when the legal system does not function fairly, it can affect job creation, business investment and even consumer costs.
"For Michigan to compete and win, we need clear and consistent laws that have staying power," Block said. "The reality is this, though, businesses invest when and where they have confidence. This includes confidence in the fairness of our legal system. This is a key economic competitiveness factor."
Brian Calley, CEO of the Small Business Association of Michigan, said for all the smaller operations in the state, one lawsuit can take them out with rising costs, and that the current legal environment created by "poor decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court" puts those businesses at risk.
Rudat said the new alliance is purely a legislative lobbying effort at this point and is not focused on any campaigns like judicial elections.
During the late 1990s and 2000s, business groups – led by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce – poured millions into the Supreme Court races. Recent cycles have not seen that type of investment. The Democratic nominees for the Supreme court of late have widely outspent their Republican opponents.
The Michigan Association for Justice, which represents trial attorneys, said in a statement that the alliance is just "a corporate-funded effort to strip away the rights of Michigan consumers, workers and patients under the guise of 'fairness' and 'balance.'"
"This is not a grassroots coalition, it's an insurance industry wish list wrapped in talking points,"Steve Pontoni, executive director of the association, said in a statement.
"For 30 years, the courts benefited the business community, making Michigan one of the worst places in the country for consumers and workers. It is not surprising that a coalition of groups that benefit from exploiting consumers, patients and workers would gather to try to put their thumb on the scales of justice again."
The association said the reinstatement of the doctrine would allow negligent property owners to evade responsibility and that the transparency measures would make it harder for people to stand up to industries with much higher means than them.
The association also said job losses because of "tort tax" has been "repeatedly debunked." The association urges lawmakers to reject the efforts that would "weaken" the justice system.
Gongwer News Service
The Michigan Alliance for Legal Reform announced its formation on Wednesday focused on two goals: regulations for outside parties funding lawsuits and reviving the "open and obvious" doctrine in premises liability.
The newly formed alliance of legal experts and business groups told reporters that their main goal is to push for policy that restores Michigan to a healthy legal climate they say has been lost in recent Michigan Supreme Court decisions to expand liability.
Zach Rudat, the alliance's director, also director of legal reform at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said recent court rulings and pending litigation in the state undermine fairness and predictability of the legal process.
Advocates for plaintiffs disagree with the group's agenda, saying the effort for fairness and balance is just "a guise."
"Michigan's legal system impacts everyone, even when they don't set foot in the courtroom," Rudat said. "Right now, the average Michigan household pays over $3,000 annually on a trickle down toward tax dollars that families could otherwise spend on groceries, mortgage payments or monthly bills."
Tiger Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, explained that during his tenure at the association, Michigan used to be a state enacting key reforms, but has recently been on the radar for courts working outside of what is appropriate to expand liability, naming Michigan "a judicial hellhole."
Starting in 1999, when a 5-2 conservative majority took hold of the Supreme Court, business groups extolled the state's legal climate following a series of rulings restricting liability. However, starting in 2018, that 5-2 conservative majority has flipped, going from 4-3 conservative to 4-3 liberal to 6-1 liberal this term.
One of the group's efforts is to revivethe "open and obvious" doctrine for defense of premises liability, which shielded business or property owned from injury caused by a hazard that was reasonably visible. It was also used to dismiss meritless claims early in litigation.
This statute exists in 41 states. The Michigan Supreme Court abolished the doctrine in 2023, overturning a 2001 precedent.
Brad Ward, vice president of public policy and legal affairs for Michigan Realtors, said restoring this doctrine would lower costs, liability and "the threat of loss and abuse for property owners."
There is legislation in the House now that could codify the liability doctrine and restore the status quo before the ruling (See Gongwer Michigan Report, August 20, 2025).
Another key issue for the alliance is being spearheaded by Rep. Mike Harris, R-Waterford Township, by introducing HB 5281 to add transparency measures to third-party litigation funding, or when an outside investor finances another person's lawsuit for a cut of the winnings.
The bill would require a funder to register with the state, prohibit funders from influencing how the case is handled, ban "foreign adversaries" from funding Michigan lawsuits and cap funder earnings to protect compensation for the plaintiffs.
"Without oversight, the system has quietly grown into a $15 billion shadow industry that distorts justice," Harris said. "Right here in the state today, a funder can bankroll a lawsuit without anyone knowing – not the judge, not the defendant, sometimes not even the plaintiff themselves. These financiers can influence settlement decisions, drag out litigation and take a hefty portion of the award. It's an unregulated marketplace that invites abuse, and it undermines the confidence in our courts here in the state, and it's not just a fairness issue, it's really a security issue."
Harris said these "are common sense guardrails" and follow suit from states like California and Tennessee that have enacted transparency law on these funding mechanisms.
There are no clear examples of this in the state, Rudat said, because of this lack of transparency. Instead, he pointed to examples across the country like a man in New York who used third-party funders for his lawsuit on the health effects of the 9/11 cleanup effort, didn't read the fine print and lost all his earnings in the suit.
Wendy Block, senior vice president of business advocacy at the Michigan Chamber of Commerce, said when the legal system does not function fairly, it can affect job creation, business investment and even consumer costs.
"For Michigan to compete and win, we need clear and consistent laws that have staying power," Block said. "The reality is this, though, businesses invest when and where they have confidence. This includes confidence in the fairness of our legal system. This is a key economic competitiveness factor."
Brian Calley, CEO of the Small Business Association of Michigan, said for all the smaller operations in the state, one lawsuit can take them out with rising costs, and that the current legal environment created by "poor decisions from the Michigan Supreme Court" puts those businesses at risk.
Rudat said the new alliance is purely a legislative lobbying effort at this point and is not focused on any campaigns like judicial elections.
During the late 1990s and 2000s, business groups – led by the Michigan Chamber of Commerce – poured millions into the Supreme Court races. Recent cycles have not seen that type of investment. The Democratic nominees for the Supreme court of late have widely outspent their Republican opponents.
The Michigan Association for Justice, which represents trial attorneys, said in a statement that the alliance is just "a corporate-funded effort to strip away the rights of Michigan consumers, workers and patients under the guise of 'fairness' and 'balance.'"
"This is not a grassroots coalition, it's an insurance industry wish list wrapped in talking points,"Steve Pontoni, executive director of the association, said in a statement.
"For 30 years, the courts benefited the business community, making Michigan one of the worst places in the country for consumers and workers. It is not surprising that a coalition of groups that benefit from exploiting consumers, patients and workers would gather to try to put their thumb on the scales of justice again."
The association said the reinstatement of the doctrine would allow negligent property owners to evade responsibility and that the transparency measures would make it harder for people to stand up to industries with much higher means than them.
The association also said job losses because of "tort tax" has been "repeatedly debunked." The association urges lawmakers to reject the efforts that would "weaken" the justice system.
––––––––––––––––––––
Subscribe to the Legal News!
https://legalnews.com/Home/Subscription
Full access to public notices, articles, columns, archives, statistics, calendar and more
Day Pass Only $4.95!
One-County $80/year
Three-County & Full Pass also available
