Kevin J. Plagens has broad trial experience in a variety of insurance defense matters, including automobile negligence, automobile no-fault, construction, real estate, retail and restaurant, product liability, landlord tenant, home insurance, premises liability, professional liability such as errors and omissions and legal malpractice, motor carrier transportation, transactional law and insurance coverage. Kevin has never lost an appellate argument in the Michigan Court of Appeals. Less than one year after he began practicing law, he was admitted to the United States Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit, where he successfully presented, and argued an appeal before the panel of justices.
Kevin is a highly dedicated transportation attorney and supervises the Kopka Pinkus Dolin rapid response team for the Michigan office. He regularly handles a large volume of transportation cases and represents many national fleets. Kevin often speaks on Michigan PIP transportation, as well as the Federal Motor Carriers Safety Act.
He is regularly requested to be a guest lecturer at seminars on issues involving Michigan third party automobile negligence law, no-fault personal injury protection benefit, errors and omissions, professional liability, premises liability, and landlord-tenant issues. He regularly attends local and chapter meetings of the American Society of Home Inspectors (ASH) and National Society of Home Inspectors (NAHI) and provides members with updates on Michigan law.
- State Bar of Michigan
- Negligence Law Section
- Real Property Law Section
- Insurance Institute of Michigan
- Michigan Trucking Association
- Trucking Industry Defense Association (TIDA)
- State of Michigan Board of Real Estate Brokers and Sales Persons. Appointed by Governor Jennifer Granholm Term 03/26/2009 through 06/30/2012
- Kevin recently handled a case wherein the insured was intoxicated when she rear-ended the plaintiff’s vehicle. Kevin admitted liability but the court refused to keep from the jury the details of the insured’s intoxication. This case was valued at $80,000 at case evaluation. The plaintiffs sought $200,000. The jury awarded one plaintiff nothing and the other plaintiff $6,500.