MICHAEL F. SCHMIDT AND NATE PEPLINSKI OBTAIN SUMMARY DISPOSITION ON CLAIM FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE CLAIMED TO BE COVERED BY A BUSINESSOWNERS POLICY

Roye Investment Group, LLC v AMCO Insurance Company, Oakland County Business Court, (2022).  Suit was filed by Roye Investment Group, LLC to recover alleged water damage in excess of $459,000 including penalty interest.  Plaintiff claimed that it was an insured or an additional insured under the policy or that the policy should be reformed to include the plaintiff as an additional insured and to obtain a declaration that AMCO breached the policy by failing to pay the plaintiff’s claim.  Following discovery, we filed a motion for summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff was not a Named Insured under the policy or an Additional Insured under any provision of the policy, that the plaintiff was not entitled to coverage under any provision of the policy, that the plaintiff had no standing to attempt reformation of the policy, that there was no mutual mistake or fact in issuing the policy and no fraud in issuing the policy.  In addition, we argued that the insurance agent was an independent agent and not an agent of AMCO and that two Certificates of Insurance relied upon by the plaintiff did not establish coverage.  The trial court, Judge Michael Warren, issued a 17-page opinion granting summary disposition to AMCO based on our arguments that the plaintiff was not a named insured or an additional insured under the policy, the plaintiff did not have standing to seek reformation of the policy, the plaintiff did not demonstrate a mutual mistake of fact or fraud, the agent was an independent insurance agent and not an agent of AMCO, and the Certificates of Insurance relied upon by plaintiff could not alter the terms and conditions of the policy and thus AMCO was entitled to summary disposition as to all claims made by the plaintiff. Click here for opinion.