Switch to ADA Accessible Theme
Close Menu
Home > All Attorneys > Angelo C. Testa

Angelo C. Testa focuses his practice in a wide variety of civil litigation, including Michigan No-Fault, complex commercial litigation, premises liability, insurance law, as well as appellate practice and procedure. Angelo has significant experience conducting depositions, engaging in settlement discussions, attending and arguing at alternative dispute resolutions, and serving as second chair counsel at trials. He excels at evaluating risk and analyzing coverage with respect to automobile, commercial general liability and professional liability policies.

Angelo has had numerous high exposure lawsuits dismissed on behalf of his clients. Most recently, he had a high exposure case dismissed after arguing that Plaintiff was a constructive owner of an uninsured vehicle; and a second dismissal on another high exposure case after arguing that Plaintiff was not a resident-relative of the client’s insured.

Angelo is a fervent advocate for the organizations and individuals he represents, and is dedicated to making their interests his number one priority. He takes a team approach to litigation matters, ensuring that the client is fully engaged throughout the litigation process.

  • State Bar of Michigan
  • American Bar Association
  • Association of Defense Trial Counsel
  • University of Michigan Alumni Association
  • Delta Epsilon
  • Pi Sigma Alpha
Presentations and Publications
Trial and Case Highlights
Angelo recently received a no-cause verdict on a complex matter involving an alleged auto incident and a substantial amount (over 6,100 hours) of attendant care claims. The defense relied on the testimony of Plaintiff’s own treating physician as well as the testimony of a treating occupational therapist, which was quite persuasive. In turn, Plaintiff relied on cumulative, suspect family member testimony. Through the evidence, the Defense established that: 1) Plaintiff never once indicated that he was injured while exiting from his vehicle, as was now being claimed; 2) Plaintiff required 24 hour attendant care prior to the subject accident due to his pre-existing condition; and 3) Plaintiff was unable to relate his need of attendant care to the subject incident.