Meriam Victoria Choulagh Associate




Meriam Choulagh practices in the areas of premises liability, automobile negligence, and general liability matters. She also has experience in the appellate process. 

Meriam joined Wilson Elser from a top-ranked Michigan insurance defense firm where she litigated matters in Michigan state and federal courts in cases involving construction injury and defect litigation, tort and automobile liability, employment law, premises liability and contract disputes. Her representation resulted in dispositive relief and favorable settlements for clients. Further, drawing on her experience working at the Michigan Court of Appeals and Michigan Supreme Court, Meriam successfully represented clients in Michigan’s appellate courts, bringing an insider’s perspective to this unique area of legal practice. 

During law school, Meriam served as the executive director of the Moot Court program and competed in a number of local and national competitions. After her first year at Detroit Mercy Law School, she interned for Justice Brian K. Zahra of the Supreme Court of Michigan. Upon graduation, she clerked for the Honorable Colleen A. O’Brien of the Michigan Court of Appeals where she further refined her writing and research skills.

Areas of Focus

Premises Liability/General Liability
Meriam defends businesses, property owners, renters, contractors and insurers in a variety of matters from personal injury claims to complex environmental exposures, including slip and falls, automobile accidents, equipment malfunction, construction injuries, faulty construction and other issues.

Representative Matters

Obtained six-figure settlement for client at the outset of litigation in an employment discrimination suit involving claims for violations of the Michigan Whistleblower Protection Act and the Michigan Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act.

Obtained summary disposition of plaintiff’s ordinary negligence claim on the basis that the claim involved medical issues that required medical testimony and, thus, sounded in medical malpractice, not ordinary negligence.

Obtained summary disposition on all three of plaintiff’s claims against client (claim for negligent hiring, negligent entrustment and ordinary negligence based on a theory of vicarious liability).

Obtained summary disposition for clients in plaintiffs’ automobile negligence and personal injury protection action on the basis that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden to show that their alleged injuries were caused by the motor vehicle accident.

Obtained voluntary dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims against client for uninsured/underinsured motorist benefits after we filed counterclaims against plaintiffs based on misrepresentations made by plaintiffs when reinstating previously lapsed insurance policy issued by client insurance company.

Obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s claim for ordinary negligence, with the court finding, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s claim did not sound in ordinary negligence, but rather sounded in medical malpractice.

Obtained summary disposition for client on plaintiff/provider suit for recovery of expenses incurred for medical services provided to underlying insured, with the court finding that the assignments by the provider were fraudulently procured and not authorized by the insured.

Obtained summary disposition in employer liability/premises liability action where plaintiff was involved in an automobile accident with an employee on the client company’s premises. The court granted summary disposition on the vicarious liability claim where we established that the employee was not acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the accident. The court also granted summary disposition on the premises liability claim where we established that the plaintiff was not injured by any hazardous condition of the property itself and thus plaintiff could not plead a valid claim for premises liability. 

Obtained dismissal of premises liability claim based on plaintiff’s failure to establish client had notice of the allegedly dangerous condition on client property. On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff’s claim.

Obtained dismissal of plaintiff’s claim against client insurance company based on the fact that under the priority rules of MCL 500.3114, the client was not the highest priority insurer or even in the line of priority because it did not insure the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s resident relative or the plaintiff’s spouse. The trial court agreed and dismissed all claims against the client.