CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY INC V CAPITAL INSURANCE GROUP (Concurring Opinion)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS CHEMICAL TECHNOLOGY, INC., UNPUBLISHED July 26, 2016 Plaintiff-Appellant, v BERKSHIRE AGENCY, INC., doing business as CAPITAL INSURANCE GROUP, No. 326394 Wayne Circuit Court LC No. 14-007723-CB 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-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
