Farm Bureau strikes again: "You expected us to pay a claim?"

  Beware of the small print in your insurance contract:  you can't negotiate the language or change it; but the insurer and some judges will strangle you with it.

  A panel of the Michigan Court of Appeals recently ruled that the owner of a rental property could not collect for the damages caused by a fire:  the landowner had allowed the home to remain vacant for more than 60 days, and under Paragraph 26 of the Farm Bureau insurance policy he purchased, no damages would be paid for a fire occurring in premises unoccupied for 60 days.  Neither the Court nor Farm Bureau considered it relevant that the premises were "unoccupied" only because the apartment had been vandalized by departing tenants and Farm Bureau had refused to pay the expenses associated with bringing them back into condition to rent. 

Maybe this wasn't a suitable policy for a rental property to begin with, and the owner should sue his agent?   Oh....we forgot...in Michigan the agent is only an agent for the insurer, and his only duty is to sell as much insurance as he can.  Therefore the agent didn't owe the landowner any duty to recommend a suitable policy.  I guess the owner just didn't recognize that in Michigan, the purpose of insurance is to "tax" citizens on behalf of large corporations by collecting premiums---not to pay claims or share risks.