Chemical Technology Inc v. Capital Insurance Group
This text of Chemical Technology Inc v. Capital Insurance Group (Chemical Technology Inc v. Capital Insurance Group) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., UNPUBLISHED July 26, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant,
v No. 326394 Wayne Circuit Court BERKSHIRE AGENCY, INC., doing business as LC No. 14-007723-CB CAPITAL INSURANCE GROUP,
Defendant-Appellee, and
AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES,
Defendant.
Before: METER, P.J., and SHAPIRO and O’BRIEN, JJ.
SHAPIRO, J. (concurring)
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that under Harts v Farmers Ins Exch, 461 Mich 1; 597 NW2d 47 (1999) an independent insurance agent owes no general duty to advise an insured about the adequacy of coverage. That case addressed whether a captive insurance agent, i.e., an insurance agent whose principal was the insurer not the insured, owed a general duty to advise an insured about the adequacy of coverage. See id. at 6-7. It did not, however, address whether an independent insurance agent, i.e., an insurance agent whose principal was the insured, owes the insured a duty to advise with regard to the coverage procured. Accordingly, I would conclude that defendant did owe plaintiff a duty. However, I concur in the result because plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence that the duty to advise regarding coverage was breached.
/s/ Douglas B. Shapiro
-1-
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Chemical Technology Inc v. Capital Insurance Group, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-technology-inc-v-capital-insurance-group-michctapp-2016.