Allstate Insurance v. Freeman
Michigan Supreme Court
1Opinion of the CourtRiley, C.J.
In these cases, consolidated for purposes of appeal, we are asked to decide the meaning of a coverage provision and two exclusionary clauses within a homeowner’s liability insurance policy.
In Allstate Ins Co v Freeman, we hold that the exclusionary clause requires application of a two-part objective test. An insurer may relieve itself of its duty to defend and indemnify if (1) the insured acted either intentionally or criminally, and (2) the resulting injuries occurred as the natural, foreseeable, expected, and anticipated result of an insured’s intentional or criminal acts. In the instant…
2Cases cited83 opinions
- Raska v. Farm Bureau Mutual InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1982
- Quincy Mutual Fire Insurance v. AbernathyMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1984
- Arenson v. National Automobile & Casualty InsuranceCalifornia Supreme Court · 1955
- Detroit Edison Co. v. Michigan Mutual InsuranceMichigan Court of Appeals · 1980
- Powers v. Detroit Automobile Inter-Insurance ExchangeMichigan Supreme Court · 1986
78 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by203 opinions
- Auto-Owners Insurance v. ChurchmanMichigan Supreme Court · 1992
- Upjohn Co. v. New Hampshire InsuranceMichigan Supreme Court · 1991
- Northland Insurance Company v. Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Cailu Title Corporation, Donald G. Sare, Jr., and Kelly L. SareCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2003
- Frankenmuth Mutual Insurance v. MastersMichigan Supreme Court · 1999
- Catholic Diocese of Dodge City v. RaymerSupreme Court of Kansas · 1992
198 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.