TOV Injury and Safety Blog

Farm Bureau avoids coverage for employee theft

In Great Northern Insurance Co. v. Dan Ngo, et al., an insurer attempted to recover for an insured loss by suing the liability insurer of a U.S. Nails store in Royal Oak.  An employee of the store had stolen jewelry from Great Northern's insured.  Farm Bureau insured the store for liability, but argued that the employee theft was not an "occurrence" which it had agreed to insure, because it was an intentional crime by a store employee.  The store's owner argued that the event was an "occurrence" from his standpoint, because it was a loss he did not intend or participate in, other than by negligently managing the property and the employee who stole it.  The Court of Appeals ruled that the the event must be viewed from the perspective of the insured employee, and therefore it was not a "chance happening" or an "accident," and therefore it was not a covered "occurrence."

Defective Chinese drywall brings to prominence concerns about inability to hold Chinese manufacturers accountable

The Kansas City Star pointed out on June 30, 2009, that the enormous problems associated with defective Chinese drywall have brought to the surface the compounding problems associated with holding Chinese manufacturers accountable.  The paper reminded readers that in recent months the list of faulty Chinese products identified in the media have included:

    "highchairs whose seat backs failed, steam cleaners that burned their users, bikes whose front-wheel forks broke, saunas that overheated, illuminated exit signs that stopped working when commercial power failed, dune buggies whose seat belts broke on impact and coffee makers that overheated and started fire...a soccer goal net that entrapped and stangled a child and a toy chest whose poorly supported lid fell on a toddler's neck and killed him."

During 2007, fully 69 percent of products recalled in the U.S. were manufactured in China, and previously recalled products continue to be imported, including "breakable toys on which infants can choke, lead toys, toys painted in lead-based colors and cribs whose slats are far enough apart to trap babies' heads."

G. M. agrees to maintain legal liabilty for future claims involving defective products after bankruptcy

As it was initially envisioned, the bankruptcy process involving General Motors would have resulted in the elimination of any liability for injuries caused by defective products, whether filed currently or in the future.  That would have closed the doors on a number of pending claims alleging death or serious injury resulting from a defective product.  After several state Attorneys General protested on behalf of injury victims, the company  and the Obama Administration have agreed to continue to recognize G.M.'s pre-existing product liability obligations, but apparently only with respect to unfiled claims. 

Fall from ladder evokes "common work area" doctrine; employee of sub-contractor can sue

David Slater was injured in a fall from a 32 foot ladder, as he attempted to unchain it.  The General Contractor had suggested that he unchain the ladder, left by another subcontractor, despite Slater's lack of experience on roofs, ladders or heights and his lack of fall protection.  His claim was initally dismissed by the trial court, but reinstatted by the Court of Appeals.  The higher court ruled that these circumstances brought into play the "common work area" doctrine, under which the owner or general contractor must assume a legal duty to maintain safety in certain construction areas.

FDA shuts down Detroit-area drug manufacturer Caraco Pharmaceuticals

Bloomberg.com reported on June 25 that U.S. authorities seized generic drugs produced by Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd., citing multiple violations of manufacturing standards.  Inspectors found "serious violations" of manufacturing standards and "serious deficiencies" in quality control when they inspected the facility in May of 2009.  

State attorney generals complain about FedEx treatment of employees

In a previous blog, we reported on the FedEx policy of claiming that its employees are independent contractors, and then abusing them by forcing them to buy their delivery trucks, failing to pay for proper insurances and generally taking advantage of them in an illegal manner.  On June 25 the Attorney Generals of Montana and seven other states demanded that Fed Ex Ground properly classify their drivers and manage employment issues in accordance with employee protection laws. 

Insurer allowed to exclude coverage arising from use of an auto

The Estate of Michael Verschure sued Essex Insurance Co. after Michael was run over in a bar parking lot.  Essex wrote liability insurance on the bar, "Wild Woody's" in Roseville.  Essex denied responsibility for the incident, claiming the events leading to Verschure's death were not an "occurrence" under the policy, that liability was excluded as an "intended injury" and that the broad auto-related injury exclusion in its policy applied to Michael's death.

Woman who "file-shared" 24 songs (worth less than $50 on iTunes) hit with $1.92 million verdict

According to the Associated Press, last week a jury awarded a verdict of $1.92 million dollars against Jammie Tomas-Rasset on behalf of a music industry plaintiff.  She had placed 24 songs on the music-sharing site Kazaa.  The songs could have been purchased on iTunes for $1.99 each, according to her attorney. 

This was the woman's second trial, as the judge had previously overturned a $222,000.00 verdict against her as "wholly disproportionate."  Chances are the outcome will be similar this time, particularly since the Supreme Court, in the Exxon Valdez case, recently overturned the punitive damage case against Exxon, even though it represented only a few weeks' profit.  Spokespersons for the Progress & Freedom Foundation's Center for Study of Digital Property (a so-called "free market think tank" fronting for big-money supporters) supported the verdict as "fairly seek[ing] to punish and deter such flagrant wrongdoing."

Law firm not responsible for employee's fraudulent notarization of signature.

Susan Grossman sued Liss and Associates, her ex-husband's attorneys, after an employee allegedly notarized her forged signature on an assignment of mortgage.  The case has made its way to the appellate court twice previously, and the court had overturned both a summary disposition and a directed verdict that had been granted to the defendant law firm.  Previously the court had held that whether the employee was acting "within the scope of her employment" at the time of the allegedly illegal act was a question of fact for the jury.  On this appeal, the plaintiff was attempting to overturn a jury verdict for the defense, based on what she claimed were unfair instructions from the trial judge.

Progressive's attempt to avoid coverage is rejected in death case

Progressive wrote insurance on the trucks operated by Rozafa Transport, however when William Neill was killed during the unloading of one of Rozafa's trucks, Progressive denied coverage.  The insurer admitted it had coverage if liability arose out of the "use, ownership or maintenance" of the semi-tractor and trailer, however, it argued that since a forklift was being used in the unloading process, the coverage was eliminated by an exclusion relating to injuries "caused by movement..of an unattached..mechanical device."

Bloomberg reports cost of medical malpractice claims are "a drop in the bucket"

On June 16, the Bloomberg News Agency responded to President Obama's talk to the American Medical Association by citing figures from a Harvard economist showing that the total cost of medical malpractice claims is about $12 per person in the U.S.  That amounts to about $3.6 billion dollars of a total $2.3 trillion dollars spent on health care (or one in every six dollars of our gross domestic product, by some calculations).  As Bloomberg and Harvard pointed out, this makes the total cost of malpractice claims "a drop in the bucket" when compared to the total cost of health care:  even eliminating malpractice claims entirely would have a negligible impact on the runaway cost of medical care in the U.S.  The U.S.'s largerst health insurer, WellPoint, Inc., conceded the same point last month when it issued a report acknowledging that medical liability was not driving up the cost of health insurance premiums.

Treble damage claim for fencing stolen property dismissed

American Auto Recyclers sued the Ferrous Processing & Trading Company, alleging that the defendant had illegally and knowingly accepted stolen automobiles for scrap.  Under Michigan law, MCL 600.2919a, a person who knowingly buys or accepts stolen property can be forced to pay treble damages to the theft victim. 

Supreme Court rules 5-4 that taking too much money from a litigant can disqualify a judge

In prior log entries we have discussed the Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company brouhaha.  Several small coal companies sued Massey, the state's largest, claiming that its owner had put them out of business through illegal fraud.  They won a verdict in the amount of $50 million dollars.  Massey then counted noses on the West Virginia Supreme Court, and contributed 3 million dollars to the campaign to replace one of the sitting justices with a candidate he favored.  That candidate won and became the deciding vote in a 3-2 decision overturning the verdict against Massey.  Yesterday the U.S. Supreme Court held 5-4 that the small coal companies had been denied due process.

Workers compensation "exclusive remedy" provision upheld

In Stallings v. General Motors Corp., the Court of Appeals again upheld the dismissal of an injury action against the injured employee's employer.  As has been explained in previous web log entries, adoption of the workers compensation scheme resulted in partial immunity for employers' negligence.  People hurt on the job are guaranteed certain benefits including medical expenses and a fraction of their normal wage, but cannot secure complete recovery from their employer, even if the employer is guilty of negligence or gross negligence.

Chamber of Commerce amps up disinformation campaign

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is a wealthy organization that represents more than three million businesses.  In the past two decades it has become an extremely aggressive political and special interest lobbying entity, charged with spending millions of dollars to buy judges, wipe out consumer protection legislation and  prevent government regulation.  It is currently campaigning against rules that would require that the nation's food supply be labeled with the country of origin. 

Sixth Circuit limits, rejects "contract immunity" defense

Joy Davis sued Venture One Construction after an unhinged door fell on her while she was retrieving a dustpan on her employer's premises.  The door had been temporarily stored outside the construction area by a subcontractor performing remodeling on a Subway restaurant, and Venture One was the general contractor having a duty to maintain safety at the site.  Venture had persuaded the trial court to dismiss Davis' claim by arguing that it owed no duty to Davis, relying upon the Michigan Supreme Court's activist interpretation of "contractual immunity."  The Sixth Circuit overturned the lower court's decision, rejected Venture's claim that it owed plaintiff no duty, and returned the case to the District Court for trial.

Commercial tenant held responsible for damage caused by fire

In American States Insurance and Ratcliff v. Hampton, dba VIP Truck & Trailer, a building owner and his insurer sued the tenant who caused a fire in the leased premises for the damage caused to his building.  Under the parties' written lease, Hampton had assumed responsibility for any damage resulting from "his negligence or the negligence of invitees or guests."  Hampton argued, however, thast Ratliff's purchase of fire insurance and his admission that his building was under-insured constituted proof that the landlord had assumed the risk associated with a fire caused by Hampton.

The Courts rejected this analysis, and distinguished this case from a prior case where the tenant's only relevant leasehold duty was to pay the insurance premiums incurred by the landlord.

Fiat can take Chrysler assets without its responsibilities

Bankruptcy judge Arthur J. Gonzalez held last week that Fiat need not assume Chrysler's product liability defect responsibilities along with its assets.  A bankruptcy judge has broad discretion in deciding whether a successor entity must stand behind its predecessor's liabilities for personal injuries.  Many judges, and most common law decisions outside bankruptcy, hold that a successor entity that takes over the valuable assets of a company must also assume its existing duties to injury victims.

Court stretches to enforce pre-injury release executed by volunteer

Teresa Theodore volunteered to work at a racetrack in Oakland County.  On her first day, she was required by the racetrack to execute a release which "waives, discharges and covenants not to sue" for any injuries suffered "arising out of or related to the event(s)" held at the racetrack. An undetermined time later, she was struck by Raymond Horenstein's trailer as he was leaving the paddock area.  She sued Horenstein for her injuries, but his insurer persuaded the trial court that her claim against Horenstein was waived by the release she signed when she agreed to volunteer.  The Court of Appeals agreed.

Their martinis were shaken, not stirred: no trespass or "taking" by Township

Brian Faulknor and Doris Kittle owned a tavern in Dalton Township, Muskegon County.  They refused to sell the Township an easement to construct and maintain a sewer through their property for $3200.00.  The Township then decided to place the sewer under the roadway adjacent to their building, and during construction vibrations from excavation and boring allegedly "substantially" damaged the Plaintiff's structure and fixtures.   Faulknor and Kittle sued, alleged a trespass and an illegal "taking" of their property.

Malpractice claim versus real estate appraiser explained

Michael Dorman sued the appraiser he hired to support his inverse condemnation claim, Gilbert Zook.  Dorman had sued Clinton Township, claiming an illegal "taking" of his right to develop a parcel of real estate.  He claimed that he lost his case because Dorman mistakenly failed to account for the Michigan Land Division Act and subsequently conceded (wrongly) that Dorman could still secure a profit on his development by complying with the Township's zoning requirements.

Court enforces one-year statute of limitation for defective product

Liparoto Construction sued General Shale Brick, and Lincoln Brick, alleging that they provided defective materials [brick] to Liparoto's construction project.  It also sued its commercial insurer for losses suffered as a result of the defective brick.  The Court held that it was too late in suing the manufacturer, and that State Auto, Liparoto's insurer, had not agreed to insure this type of loss.

Court of Appeals decides to publish case rejecting title insurer negligence

Several weeks ago, we described the holding in Wormsbacher and W & FLLC v. Phillip R. Seaver Title Company, Inc., holding, in which a panel of the Court of Appeals concluded that a title insurance company cannot be held responsible for negligence.  This month, the panel decided the decision should be published and serve as a precedent for the proposition that title insurers can only be held responsible to fulfill the duties they spell out in the title insurance contract.  Under the decision, insureds have no remedies other than those agreed to by the insurer in the contract.  The judges concluded that if a buyer or developer wants a remedy in the event of an error in examining the title, it should pay for an abstract rather than a title insurance commitment.

Court analyzes mobile home mold claim

Steven and Amber Raab purchased a manufactured home and leased a lot from River Ridge-Saline, LLC in November 2000.  The lot didn't drain properly, resulting in mold problems focused primarily underneath the mobile home.  The Raabs consulted experts who documented the mold problems, however, their findings did not indicate catastrophic damages.  One expert did testify, however, that it would cost $48,000.00 to remediate the problems.  Despite this claim, the trial court removed the case to District Court on the basis that reasonable minds could not conclude that the family suffered more than $25,000.00--the jurisdictional limit of the Court.

General contractor not responsible for wall collapse that caused serious injury

Brian Crumley, a carpenter, suffered very serious injuries on the job when a wall being erected collapsed in a stiff wind.  He sued Multi Building Company, Inc., a lumber supplier, alleging that Multi, the general contractor on site, had been negligent in protecting workers by failing to assure that the wall was "toed in" immediately.  Under Michigan law, a general contractor owes all workers on a site the duty to protect them from known dangers that pose a hazard to multiple employees in a "common work area."

Cancer patients sue to deny patent to company claiming ownership of gene

Myriad Genetics was allowed to patent two genes that are closely associated with a risk of breast or ovarian cancer, and on the testing that measures that risk.  This week, Genae Girard and other cancer patients sued to challenge Myriad's patenting of human genes.  Professional organizations of pathologists and individual physicians joined in the suit.

Restaurant not liable for criminal attack on patron

Mauricio Veal was attacked and robbed in the Defendant, V. Veseli,Inc.'s restaurant.  He filed suit claiming that the restaurant's employees were negligent in allowing the several men responsible for the attack to loiter on its premises and in failing to promptly seek police support.  The Court of Appeals pointed to uncontradicted testimony documenting that no one had anticipated the attack and that Mr. Veal left the establishment immediately after the attack to follow his assailants. 

FDA warns of contamination in Olay cosmetics plant

Reuters reported on May 5 that the FDA had warned Procter & Gamble that it had not adequately addressed contamination and other manufacturing problems at its Puerto Rico manufacturing plant.  The plant produces over-the-counter drugs such as Vicks Sinex nasal spray, and Olay cosmetics such as Revitalizing Daily Foam and Foaming Face Wash.  The FDA's previous inspection report pointed out that products were packaged or prepared in "unsanitary conditions" and that they may have been "contaminated by filth...or... rendered injurious to health." 

Boy, there's an endorsement for your next "Face Wash."  The warning letter is posted on the FDA's website.

Citizens Insurance ducks an obligation

In 2003, the City of Flint replaced the sidewalk in front of a building insured by Citizens.  The basement, occupied by Legal Services Plan of Eastern Michigan, occupied land up to and underneath the sidewalk.  During construction, the contractors accidentally opened an abandoned coal chute allowing access to the basement.  Over the July 4 weekend, a significant rain deposited 20 inches of surface water from the paved road adjacent to the sidewalk in the basement rooms occupied by the Plan.  The Plan looked to Citizens to cover the damage.

More litigation regarding poison gas in the Holiday Inn pool

Last month the Court of Appeals held that the Holiday Inn Express in Ludington had insurance coverage for a substantial injury verdict rendered against it.  This month, the court set aside the verdict in Bronkema v. Ferwerda Enterprises, Inc.  The case arose when a maintenance man, hurrying with repairs so that he could return to jail after work release, did not successfully accomplish his repairs and allowed poison gas to injure the Bronkema family.  The trial judge had directed a verdict in favor of the family on the issue of Holiday Inn negligence, but the judge threw out the case against the pool component manufacturer, whom the Holiday claimed failed to adequately inform it about proper safety measures. 

Where can a fired employee file suit for discrimination?

Sometimes where a suit is filed is as important as the evidence presented.  A discrimination claim, for example, will find a more sympathetic ear among jurors who tend to sympathize with victims of discrimination.  And conventional wisdom says white jurors more easily identify with white litigants while black jurors more readily identify with black litigants.  Fifth Third Bank recognized that; and after two black Wayne County employees were fired and filed suit in Wayne County where they were fired, Fifth Third sought to move their cases from Wayne County to Oakland County "where the decision to terminate the employees was made in the regional office."  The trial judges refused to transfer venue, but a two-judge majority of the Court of Appeals obliged on appeal.

Can AutoOwners dodge responsibility for injuries at Ludington Motel?

The Bronkema family was injured by chlorine gas while staying at the Holiday Inn Express in Ludington.  No one denied the family's injuries, and AutoOwners initially paid more than $10,000.00 in medical expenses incurred by the family.  When the incident turned out to be more significant than anticipated, however, AutoOwners denied responsibility and stopped paying, citing the "pollution" exception in the coverage it wrote for the motel.  The trial judge rejected AutoOwners' pollution argument and awarded the motel and the Bronkemas more than $500,000.00 in damages, fees and costs.

Insurance agents held accountable for arranging illusory health coverage for employees

This week the Court of Appeals upheld a $1.2 million dollar verdict against Joseph Saigh and Lawrence Wells.  The jury had concluded that Saigh and Wells had allowed their employee to sell illusory coverage, provided by an unlicensed insurer, through negligent or intentional misrepresentations.  The Court rejected the defendants claims that they were not responsible for the representations made by their employee and also  rejected arguments that they owed no duty to the employer, even though they were retained expressly  because they claimed to be "specialists in health insurance coverage." 

The Court also allowed the corporate employer to collect exemplary damages from the defendants, based on the injury the company suffered to its good name.  The court noted that as a result of the illusory coverage the Defendants arranged and facilitated, the corporate employer suffered loss of good employees, hundreds of complaints from employees and health care providers, and a loss of reputation.  The case is Unibar Maintenance Services, Inc. v. Joseph Saigh and Lawrence Wells.

Court dismisses nursing home restraint case for failure to comply with malpractice "reforms"

Bortz Health Care of Ypsilanti managed to avoid a trial on the merits regarding its alleged failure to provide adequate care to  resident Lorraine Lanier.  Lanier fell and suffered serious injury while living in defendant's nursing home.  Her son claimed the fall was caused by a combination of excessive chemical restraints and a lack of supervision by defendant. 

The ultimate accuracy of the guardian/son's allegations will never be known because he failed to comply with the medical malpractice "reform" rules by filing a Notice of Intent and Affidavit of Merit, and apparently he did not comply with the shorter medical malpractice statute of limitations.  He believed that the gravamen of his claims sounded in ordinary negligence, but the court disagreed.

Worker protection under safety program targeting unsafe employers was illusory

It will come as a surprise to few people to learn that the Bush Administration failed to effectively regulate known unsafe employers in a program intended to target particularly dangerous firms and industries.  A recent Labor Department Report found that the protections to be offered by the program were illusory, due to a combination of mismanagement and inadequate resources.

Union workers' anti-discrimination rights can be bargained away

In a reversal of public policy, the U.S. Supreme Court decided last week that a union majority, or its executive council, can bargain away individual rights relating to discrimination.  Historically, the Supreme Court had rejected this kind of argument, noting that a majority within the union may be willing to trade individual rights--or allow discrimination against an insular minority--if it can secure benefits for the broader membership.  In last week's 5-4 decision, written by Justice Thomas, the majority overturned the 1974 Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Company decision and allowed the union to bargain away federal age-discrimination protections.  The Union had acquiesced in employer demands that age discrimination claims be resolved only through arbitration and that normal civil procedure rights (including the right to a jury trial) be relinquished.

Farmers' "stray voltage" case dismissed as court rejects their experts' testimony

In Schaendorf v. Consumers Energy, the Court of Appeals acknowledged that it is common knowledge and undisputed by either party that stray voltage in a barn can and will decrease milk production.  Nevertheless, it upheld the dismissal of the Plaintiff's economic damage claim, citing a lack of scientific foundation for the farmers' three experts' testimony.

Insurer avoids claim for water damage after corporate identity change

The owners of the Alexis Manor Apartments decided to convert them to condomimiums.  To facilitate the change, they created a second corporation and transferred title to the building.  They maintained the same insurance policy with Michigan Millers.  When they suffered water damage, they attempted to collect on the policy, but were denied.  The court ultimately ruled that despite taking the owners' money for coverage, the insurer and the agent who sold the insurance owed the owners no duty to procure the proper coverage, because only the predecessor corporation was a "client" of the insurer and agent.  By accepting premiums from the new corporation, the insurer and agent did not incur any obligation to the property-owning corporation.  The case is Belfor USA Group, Inc., v. Alexis Manor Apartments, et al.

Farm Bureau's efforts to avoid paying fire loss are discredited by court

Brittany Smith's home burned.  She had bought coverage with Farm Bureau.  Farm  Bureau demanded that Smith complete the copious Proof of Loss which can be required by law (and it has short time limits, by the way) and she filled it out including between $900 and $1,000 dollars of personal property in the residence destroyed by fire but not owned by her.  She explained that apparent discrepancy to Farm Bureau when it forced her to sit for an examination under oath.  Nevertheless, Farm Bureau attempted to void her policy and refused to pay her the insured value of her loss--which was in excess of $200,000.00 in real and personal property.

Farm Bureau evades another obligation

Dynamic Land, L.L.C., bought commercial insurance from Farm Bureau on a two-unit commercial building.  It was renovating the insured property when a sprinkler system pipe broke.  It attempted to recover for lost rent and actual expenses of nearly $300,000.00, incurred over the twelve months the property was under repair.  Farm Bureau denied payment, arguing that the company had not shown an "actual loss of business income" during the repair period. 

U.S. Supreme Court rejects implied immunity for drug companies

In a pleasant surprise for consumers, the Supreme Court rejected, on a 6-3 vote, the attempt by drug companies to achieve product liability immunity for all drugs approved for sale by the FDA.  On March 5, the majority of Justices upheld a jury verdict in favor of a professional musician who lost an arm as a result of defective warning labels on an antinausea drug.  This case was a deviation from recent decisions where the Supreme Court had appeared to signal a willingness to pre-empt state law injury cases where federal law implied an intention to "cover the field".

Court of Appeals refuses to overturn jury verdict regarding building fire

The owners of the vacant Bagley Building in Detroit sued the company that was demolishing an adjacent building, the Statler-Hiltorn Hotel, after the Bagley Building was damaged by fire.  The owners claimed that the fire in the Bagley Building was caused by the Defendant's demolition activities.  The jury disagreed, and the owners argued on appeal that the jury's decision was "against the great weight of the evidence."  

City of Ferndale may be responsible for "tortious interference" for denying antenna request

In Laurence Wolf Capital Management Trust v. City of Ferndale, et al., the City's original summary disposition was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which also cited the City's studied efforts to distort the facts on appeal.  The Plaintiff claimed that the City's arbitrary and capricious zoning decisions regarding Plaintiffs' cell tower applications arguably constituted an unlawful intereference with Plaintiff's advantageous business relationship with AT&T and sent that claim back to the lower court for trial.

Sixth Circuit recognizes that members of protected class, and their associates, are protected by Title VII

In Barrett v. Whirlpool, the Sixth Circuit held that Title VII protects not only the members of a class who had previously been discriminated against, but also the close associates of members of the class.  The Plaintiffs were caucasian employees of Whirlpool Corporation who alleged that they had suffered discrimination, retaliation or a hostile work environment as a result of their association with, and advocacy for, African-Americans.  The trial court had dismissed their claims, holding that since they were not members of the protected class, Title VII did not apply to them.  The Sixth Circuit held that federal law barred discrimination against these non-members of the protected class, as well as the members, and returned the case to the trial court to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to prove their claims.

Wal-Mart admits illegal conduct once again?

Is it just us, or is there a multi-million dollar, enormous settlement that suggests an admission of wrong-doing by Wal-Mart every week?  This week, Bloomberg reported that Wal-Mart paid $17.5 million dollars [a small case by Wal-Mart standards] to settle claims that it discriminated against African-Americans in recruiting and hiring truck drivers. 

Title insurers aren't responsible for negligence in Michigan

Apparently because there was concern they would flee the state, Michigan title insurers have gradually been granted immunity by state court judges, at least according to the Court of Appeals' recent ruling in Wormsbacher v. Phillip R. Seaver Title Co.  A buyer who relied on title searches before buying land in a Rochester subdivision attempted to sue the title company when it turned out that the company failed to advise him of restrictions prohibiting commercial use of the land.

Farm Bureau required to fulfill its duties under insurance contract; State Farm allowed to skate

The owners of Aladdin's Carpet Cleaning purchased commercial liability from State Farm and an umbrella from Farm Bureau.  State Farm had the insight to exclude coverage for "mold claims" in the small print of its policy, but Farm Bureau's loop-hole generators weren't as effective.  Aladdin was hired to help clean water damage in a home and allegedly performed badly, negligently contributing to a mold problem throughout the house.  When Aladdin turned the claim over to its (two) insurers to defend, they both ran for the "back forty".  Aladdin defended the lawsuit with the homeowner and resolved it, before suing State Farm and Farm Bureau for the costs it incurred.

Progressive Insurance not liable for vehicle title "mistake"

Progressive Insurance totalled one of its insured's vehicles, but then sold it with a clear title instead of a salvage title.  A purchaser bought the vehicle after it was repaired, but Progressive refused to insure it because of the title "error."  (How's that for irony?)  The auction house, Pro-Tech, bought the vehicle back and a dispute developed between it and the dealer over the quality of the dealer's repairs.  When the dealer refused to contribute to the buy-back, it was banned from Pro-Tech auctions, and the dealer eventually sued the auction house and Progressive.  The Court of Appeals held that Progressive's titling "error" was too remote to make it responsible for the controversy that developed between the auction house and the repairing dealer.  If an insured made a similar "mistake" in his or her purchase documents, their insurance would be voided for fraud.  The term "progressive" has certainly assumed a different meaning over the past few decades.

More immunity for contractors

A doctor and his wife moved into a new home and retained a painter to re-paint the interior.  The painter he hired did an incompetent job, leaving paint spots on the wooden floor and severe scratches on the window panes where paint was removed.  He sued the contractor for negligence, but the Court tossed his claim.

The judicial activists of the Engler-era created tort immunity for contractors by holding that a contractor cannot be sued for negligently performing a contractual duty.  Under the Fultz v. Union-Commerce Assoc. decision, the "Engler majority" held that assuming a contractual duty to act relieved the contractor of his otherwise-existing duty of reasonable care, rendering the contractor immune from negligence claims by the other parties to the contract or third-parties.  In this case, Mehta v. Limbright, the result was a lack of insurance coverage to pay for the contractor's admitted "incompetence or sloppiness".  In many other cases, the doctrine has meant that a severely disabled injury victim has been denied recourse against the insurer of the wrongdoer who caused the injury.

Verdict against insurance agent is upheld

GHD Operating, LLC, sought to insure its plant against fire and casualty and retained the Emerson Prew Agency to help it.  An employee of Emerson issued a certificate of property insurance through St. Paul, but failed to actually confirm the coverage.  GHD was belatedly made aware of the lack of coverage, but before it could secure a substitute policy, the factory burned to the ground.  A jury found Emerson responsible for the loss, but attributed 40 percent negligence to GHD.   The Court upheld the jury's verdict over repeated motions and appeals by the Emerson Agency, confirming that Emerson's negligence in securing coverage or notifying GHD of the lack of coverage, was a proximate cause of the uninsured loss suffered by GHD.