Andrew T. Blum

Senior Attorney

blum@millercanfield.com

Grand Rapids
T: +1.616.776.6327
O: +1.616.454.8656
F: +1.616.776.6322

Andrew Blum specializes in material supply agreement disputes in the automotive and aerospace industry. Over the past several years, he has represented numerous material purchasers in negotiations with their suppliers over whether these material cost increases would be passed on to the purchasers. He also has served as litigation counsel for Tier Two and Tier Three automotive clients in any disputes with material suppliers which could not be resolved through negotiations.

“I am determined, dogged and a problem-solver on my clients' behalf. I candidly address with them the strengths of their positions. Too often, attorneys will only tell their clients what they think they want to hear and not what they should hear.”
Andrew T. Blum

As a component of his litigation practice, Andrew and his colleagues have repeatedly confronted situations in which material suppliers have refused to ship material to their clients because of price disputes. These ‘No Ship’ cases have required Andrew's team to provide strategies and/or litigation support to their clients to resolve or litigate those disputes on a relatively quick turnaround basis.

Andrew also devotes considerable time to representing both landowners and condemning authorities in eminent domain cases involving public improvements as diverse as Downtown Development Authorities, railroad crossings, road improvements, storm water treatment plants, bike trails, consolidated drains, sidewalk easements, parks and ice rinks. He also has served as litigation counsel for financial institutions which have been involved in Article III and Article IV Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) related disputes.

Experience

Andrew co-defended a major financial institution in a multimillion-dollar lawsuit brought by one of its business customers for alleged Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) Article III and Article IV violations. In essence, the customer asserted that the financial institution acted improperly when it allowed business checks to be deposited into the personal account of one of the business’ employees and that these deposits allegedly resulted in millions of dollars in damages to the business.

Because this particular employee had been previously convicted of federal check-kiting charges and had already been convicted of criminal activity with regard to her check-writing activity for the business, Andrew and his team recommended pursuing alternative strategies. Their investigation thus centered on possible alternative explanations for why the deposits did not harm the business.

After examining hundreds of boxes of documents, Andrew and his team discovered one two-page document that seemed to support an alternative explanation. Based in part on this document and good deposition questioning, they were able to get the business owner to admit that he and his employee were in fact partners and that these transactions were authorized and thus the business was not damaged by the deposits. As a result, the case was dismissed at the summary judgment stage.

Professional Activities

American Bar Association, Member, Litigation Section
State Bar of Michigan
Federal Bar Association
Grand Rapids Bar Association

Honors + Awards

University of Notre Dame Law School, magna cum laude; Notre Dame Law Review
University of Notre Dame, Phi Beta Kappa; Phi Beta Alpha Government Honor Society; Sigma Tau Delta English Honor Society

Civic, Cultural + Social Activities

Conductive Learning Center School, Board of Directors, 2001-present; Corporate Officer, 2001-2008
Notre Dame Summer Shakespeare Festival, Board of Directors, 1999-present; Chairman, Executive Committee, 1999-present
Notre Dame Club of Grand Rapids, Vice President, 2007-present; Board of Directors, 1998-present; Young Alumni Coordinator, 1998-2007
Notre Dame Presidential Advisory Council, 2004-present

View full profile