Preview:

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

LOOKING GOOD LAWNS, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v SECURA INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.

UNPUBLISHED January 10, 2012

No. 301805 Washtenaw Circuit Court LC No. 09-001375-CK

Before: MURPHY, C.J., and FITZGERALD and METER, JJ. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in favor of defendant. We affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY The basic facts are not in dispute. Plaintiff, a lawn care and landscaping company, intended to apply a selective herbicide to the lawns of several customers for the purpose of eliminating weeds in those lawns. However, plaintiff mistakenly applied a non-selective herbicide that destroyed the grass in the lawns. Plaintiff incurred substantial expense for the restoration of the lawns. At the time of the incident, plaintiff was insured under a "Businessowners Policy" and a limited pesticide or herbicide applicator coverage endorsement issued by defendant. After defendant denied coverage, plaintiff filed this lawsuit seeking a declaration that the herbicide endorsement provided coverage to include the mistaken herbicide application and that the policy exclusions relied on by defendant to deny coverage did not apply. Plaintiff also sought damages for breach of contract. Defendant moved for summary disposition, asserting in part that plaintiff's claim was barred under two property damage exclusions contained in the policy. Defendant also asserted that the herbicide endorsement did not override these policy exclusions.

-1-

The trial court issued an opinion granting defendant's motion for summary disposition.1 The court first found that coverage was barred under Exclusion (k)(5) because plaintiff was performing operations on real property and that the property damage was to the real property on which plaintiff was performing operations and arose directly out of those operations. The court also found that coverage was barred under Exclusion (k)(6) because the damage was to property that had to be replaced because plaintiff's work was incorrectly performed on it. Lastly, the court found that the herbicide endorsement did not create coverage where coverage was excluded by the "your work" exclusions in the policy. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW On appeal, a trial court's decision whether to grant a motion for summary disposition is a question of law that is reviewed de novo. Brown v Brown, 478 Mich 545, 551; 739 NW2d 313 (2007). The motion is properly granted when the proffered evidence fails to establish a genuine issue regarding any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id. at 552. A genuine issue of material fact is found to exist "when reasonable minds could differ on an issue after viewing the record in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Allison v AEW Capital Mgt, LLP, 481 Mich 419, 425; 751 NW2d 8 (2008). The interpretation of an insurance contract is a question of law that is reviewed de novo on appeal. Wilkie v Auto

Download LOOKING GOOD LAWNS LLC V SECURA INSURANCE COMPANY.pdf

Michigan Law