Navigate Up
Sign In

159510-1 - Skanska USA Bldg Inc v MAP Mechanical Ins Co

Skanska USA Building, Inc.,


Edward Boucher





(Appeal from Ct of Appeals)



(Midland – Beale, M.)


M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors, Inc., Amerisure Insurance Company, and Americure Mutual Insurance Company,


Jeffrey Gerish





Plaintiff Skanska USA Building, Inc., was the construction manager on a hospital renovation project in Midland. Plaintiff subcontracted the heating and cooling portion of the project to defendant M.A.P. Mechanical Contractors, Inc. M.A.P. obtained a commercial general liability insurance policy from defendant Amerisure Insurance Company. Plaintiff and the hospital were named as additional insureds on the CGL policy. M.A.P. improperly installed parts of the heating system, resulting in damage that required extensive repairs. After plaintiff notified M.A.P. of the faulty installation, M.A.P. sent a notice of claim to Amerisure. Meanwhile, the hospital demanded payment of damages from plaintiff, who in turn sent a demand letter to M.A.P., asserting that it was responsible for all repair costs. Plaintiff performed the repairs and submitted a claim for coverage to Amerisure, which was denied. Plaintiff then filed this lawsuit against M.A.P. and Amerisure. The trial court denied Amerisure’s motion for summary disposition, finding that genuine issues of material fact existed whether the faulty installation was an “occurrence” under the policy. The trial court also denied plaintiff’s motion for summary disposition. Both parties appealed, arguing that the coverage issue should be resolved as a matter of law. The Court of Appeals consolidated the appeals and reversed in an unpublished opinion, holding that there was no “occurrence” under the policy because damage only occurred to plaintiff’s own work product. The Supreme Court has granted plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal to address whether: (1) the definition of “occurrence” in Hawkeye-Security Ins Co v Vector Construction Co, 185 Mich App 369 (1990), remains valid under the terms of the CGL policy at issue here; and (2) plaintiff has shown a genuine issue of material fact as to the existence of an “occurrence” under those terms. ​