CHRISTINE M. BATTLE is a Partner with Vandeveer Garzia. Her areas of practice include automobile negligence (first party, third party, and provider cases), analysis of indemnification agreement, premise liability, product liability, commercial litigation, insurance coverage, general negligence, and appellate practice. She has experience in both state and federal courts. While in law school, Tina was a member of Moot Court. Some of her landmark cases as an attorney include Middlebrooks v. Wayne County, 446 Mich 151; 521 NW2d 774 (1994) and Rembrandt Const., Inc. v. Butler Mfg. Co., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued November 21, 2006 (Docket No. 270577), found at 2006 WL 3375249.
Michigan State University, B. A., History/Education, 1982
Detroit College of Law (now Michigan State University College of Law), J.D. 1986
State Bar of Michigan 1986
United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan 1986
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Supreme Court of the United States 2012
State Bar of Michigan, Negligence Section
Oakland County Bar Association, past chair of the Young Lawyers and Public Service Committees
Hall v Fitness International and Osborne
Tina Battle and Brian Boehne obtained summary disposition, with prejudice, in the Wayne County Circuit Court, on Plaintiff’s claims for negligence and gross negligence for personal injuries allegedly sustained during a personal training session at Defendants’ fitness facility. The Motion for Summary Disposition argued that Plaintiff’s claims for negligence were barred by a Release of Liability signed by Plaintiff. The Court found that the language of the Release of Liability was prominently displayed and determined that the intention of Defendants to disclaim liability was clearly expressed. Further, the Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff had signed the Release of Liability and that it was fairly and knowingly made. With respect to the Plaintiff’s claims for gross negligence, the Court found that there was no genuine issue of material fact that Plaintiff failed to establish a cause of action for gross negligence in that Defendants did not engage in conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury resulted. Plaintiff alleged a claim for damages in excess of $300,000.
Tina Battle and her family participated in the Walk to End Alzheimer’s
On August 25, 2018, Tina Battle and her family participated in the Walk to End Alzheimer’s – Metro Detroit in memory of her mother who passed away from the disease. Tina raised over $5,200 for the Walk and was recognized as a Top Ten Fundraiser and a Grand Champion Fundraiser. Tina’s team from Sunrise of Troy was the #3 fundraising team for the Metro Detroit Walk. This year, Tina is the #2 fundraiser nationwide for Sunrise Senior Living.
Vandeveer Garzia attorneys prevail on a Motion for Summary Disposition
Holland v Citizens
Sarah Gordon and Tina Battle obtained a dismissal, with prejudice, on behalf of their clients, Citizens Insurance Company of America and Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, on a cause of action for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under a personal auto policy and uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits under a separate umbrella policy in a wrongful death action pending in the Wayne County Circuit Court. The cause of action arose out of a motor vehicle vs. motorcycle accident in which the owner and operator of the motorcycle died when struck by the defendant driver who turned left in front of the motorcycle. The potential exposure to their clients was 1.5 million dollars.
Ms. Gordon and Ms. Battle filed a Motion for Summary Disposition arguing that uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits were excluded under the personal auto policy because coverage was not provided to an insured who was occupying a motor vehicle owned by that insured which was not insured for coverage under the personal auto policy. The term motor vehicle was not defined within the UM/UIM portion of the policy and accordingly Defense counsel argued that the dictionary or common meaning of the term applied which included a motorcycle. Plaintiff’s counsel argued that the policy was ambiguous because it contained definitions of a motor vehicle which excluded motorcycles in other portions of the policy, specifically in the Accidental Death portion of the Policy and the Personal Injury Protection portion of the Policy. The Honorable Annette J. Berry agreed with the argument that the policy was not ambiguous and when given its commonly used meaning, the term motor vehicle included a motorcycle. Accordingly, UIM benefits were excluded. Ms. Gordon and Ms. Battle also successfully argued that the umbrella policy excluded any claim for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits unless a special endorsement was added to the policy.