Nathan Scherbarth Takes Helm of Insurance Coverage Report

In his inaugural column in the Spring 2025 edition, Nathan provided analysis of three recent decisions from the Michigan Court of Appeals that address key coverage issues.

1. Ware v Meemic Ins Co
   Nathan explains how the Court of Appeals in Ware held that a vehicle can be deemed “uninsured” for uninsured motorist (UM) coverage even when there is a liability policy in place if that policy does not actually apply at the time of the accident. Here, the State Farm policy was deemed inapplicable because the insureds failed to provide the required notice of the accident and litigation, aligning with the Court’s approach in Integon Nat’l Ins Co v Berry.
2. Sobesky v Geico Gen’l Ins Co
   In this case, the Court affirmed that an insurance agent does not owe a duty to advise on coverage adequacy unless a “special relationship” is established. Nathan highlights how the decision reinforces the Harts test for special relationships and clarifies that repackaging negligence claims as misrepresentation claims does not change this fundamental requirement.
3. Meemic Ins Co v Mativa
   Finally, Nathan addresses the application of the intentional acts exclusion in Mativa, where the Court held that injury resulting from a headlock in a bar altercation was reasonably expected, triggering the exclusion. The Court emphasized an objective standard, finding that coverage does not extend to bodily injury that can reasonably be expected, regardless of the insured’s subjective intent.

Nathan’s column offers practical takeaways for insurers and insureds navigating complex coverage disputes. His experience and analysis make this new feature in the MDTC Quarterly a must-read for insurance professionals and litigators alike.