Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BERKSHIRE AGENCY, INC., doing business as CAPITAL INSURANCE GROUP, Defendant-Appellee, and AMERICAN EMPIRE SURPLUS LINES, Defendant.

SHAPIRO, J.

UNPUBLISHED Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 14-007723-CB 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

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Chem. Tech., Inc. v. Berkshire Agency, Inc.
(Jul 26, 2016)