South Macomb Disposal Authority v. Michigan Mun. Risk Management Authority
| Decision Date | 18 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 152012 |
| Citation | 207 Mich.App. 475,526 N.W.2d 3 |
| Parties | SOUTH MACOMB DISPOSAL AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MICHIGAN MUNICIPAL RISK MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Dykema Gossett by Roger K. Timm, John A. Ferroli and Ava K. Ortner, Detroit, for the plaintiff.
Edick and Esper, P.C. by Robert E. Edick, Dearborn, for the defendant.
Before GRIBBS, P.J., and WEAVER and HATHAWAY, * JJ.
Plaintiff disposes of municipal waste collected by municipalities in Macomb County. In July 1983, residents brought suit against plaintiff, alleging that the surface and groundwater in the vicinity of two of plaintiff's landfill sites were contaminated by discharges from the sites. Through a "joint exercise of power agreement" (JEPA) entered into between defendant and plaintiff, defendant provided plaintiff with loss protection similar to an insurance policy. Because of the contamination suit, plaintiff sought loss protection from defendant pursuant to the JEPA. Defendant denied coverage and plaintiff brought the instant action seeking loss protection coverage from defendant. The court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition. Plaintiff now appeals as of right. We affirm.
Plaintiff argues that defendant had waived any coverage defenses because defendant failed to respond to plaintiff's notice that it sought coverage.
In order for defendant to waive its rights against plaintiff, it must have intentionally and knowingly relinquished those rights. Commercial Union Ins. Co. v. Medical Protective Co., 136 Mich.App. 412, 356 N.W.2d 648 (1984). The record does not show that defendant did so.
For estoppel by silence, the party standing by and concealing its rights must have, by its conduct, shown such gross negligence as to have encouraged or influenced the opposite party, who was wholly ignorant of its adversary's claim, to act to the latter's disadvantage. An essential element of estoppel is that a party knowingly permitted the opposite party to act to its own disadvantage. Id. Again the record simply does not support this standard. We find the court did not err in denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary disposition on this ground.
Defendant had agreed to provide loss protection to plaintiff for comprehensive liability. Appendix B of the JEPA provides that defendant will pay for damages for which members become legally obligated to pay as a result of "[o]ccurrences happening during the period of membership ... for ... [p]roperty damages including physical injury to or destruction of tangible property including any resulting loss of use...." Appendix B also includes a pollution exclusion: "Such payment shall not include occurrences resulting from the following: 1) Contaminants or pollutants liability." The court found that this exclusion precluded coverage.
Occurrence is defined in the JEPA as "an event, or a continuous or repeated exposure to conditions, which causes damages...." The parties' arguments focus on whether this clause excludes coverage for plaintiff's claims, which are based on groundwater contamination resulting from leaking at the landfill sites.
Construction of insurance contract language requires the courts to give the language its ordinary and plain meaning and avoid technical and strained constructions. Hawkeye-Security Ins. Co. v. Vector Construction Co., 185 Mich.App. 369, 460 N.W.2d 329 (1990). If, in light of the entire contract, the language can be reasonably understood in differing ways, the ambiguity is to be liberally construed against the insurer. Id. If a contract, even though inartfully worded or clumsily...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Angott v. Chubb Group Ins.
...against plaintiff, it must have intentionally and knowingly relinquished those rights." South Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Michigan Muni Risk Mgt. Auth., 207 Mich.App. 475, 476, 526 N.W.2d 3 (1994). "It necessarily follows that conduct that does not express any intent to relinquish a known righ......
-
Bristol West Ins. Co. v. Whitt
...to waive a coverage defense if the insurer is aware of the facts supporting the defense. See S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Mich. Mun. Risk Mgmt. Auth., 207 Mich.App. 475, 476, 526 N.W.2d 3, 4 (1994); LeDuff v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 212 Mich.App. 13, 18, 536 N.W.2d 812, 815 In its September 5,......
-
Geo Fin., LLC v. Univ. Square 2751, LLC
...Bank of Ann Arbor v. Everest Nat. Ins. Co., 563 F. App'x. 473, 477 (6th Cir. 2014) (citing S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Mich. Mun. Risk Mgmt. Auth., 207 Mich. App. 475, 526 N.W.2d 3, 4 (1994); LeDuff v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 212 Mich. App. 13, 536 N.W.2d 812, 815 (1995)). There are exception......
-
Bank of Ann Arbor v. Everest Nat'l Ins. Co., 13-1752
...the defense." Bristol W. Ins. Co. v. Whitt, 406 F. Supp. 2d 771, 781 (W.D. Mich. 2005) (citing S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Mich. Mun. Risk Mgmt. Auth., 526 N.W.2d 3, 4 (Mich.Ct.App.1994)); LeDuff v. Auto Club Ins. Ass'n, 536 N.W.2d 812, 815 (Mich.Ct.App.1995). Defendant's letter denied Plai......