An insurer’s duty to defend an insured; Principle that the insurer must provide a defense if the allegations of a third party against the policyholder even arguably come within the policy coverage; Radenbaugh v. Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of MI; American Bumper & Mfg. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co.; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Maloney; Protective Nat’l Ins. Co. of Omaha v. City of Woodhaven; Detroit Edison Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co.; Auto Club Group Ins. Co. v. Burchell; The intentional tort exception to the Worker’s Disability Compensation Act (WDCA); MCL 418.131(1); Travis v. Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co.; The exclusive-remedy provision of the WDCA; Harris v. Vernier; Contract construction; Matouk v. Michigan Mun. League Liab. & Prop. Pool; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Fick; Frankenmuth Mut. Ins. Co. v. Masters; Michigan Nat’l Bank v. Laskowski; Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harrington; Century Sur. Co. v. Charron; Allstate Ins. Co. v. Freeman

The court held that the trial court erred by denying defendant-insurer’s motion for summary disposition and by instead granting summary disposition for plaintiff-insured. Defendant defended plaintiff in a negligence action brought against plaintiff by its employee. The trial court in that matter granted summary disposition for plaintiff. However, the employee was allowed to amend his complaint to include new allegations, including intentional tort. Defendant then informed plaintiff that it was no longer obligated to defend it. The trial court disagreed and granted summary disposition for plaintiff. On appeal, the court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred by denying its motion for summary disposition and by instead granting summary disposition for plaintiff. It noted that defendant would not have been required to defend plaintiff if, from plaintiff’s standpoint, the injury was either intentionally caused or aggravated by plaintiff, or if it had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and it willfully disregarded that knowledge. The court noted that the employee alleged that plaintiff had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge. “Because this conduct was excluded from coverage by the policy, [defendant] did not have a duty to defend [plaintiff] against the intentional tort claim.” In addition, “even if the fact finder was to determine that [plaintiff] was not liable for an intentional tort because [the employee’s] injuries were caused by an accident, [the employee’s] claim would be barred under the exclusive-remedy provision of the WDCA.” Because there was “no possibility of coverage under the policy, it reasonably follows that [defendant] had no duty to defend [plaintiff] against” the intentional tort action. Finally, because defendant “was not contractually obligated to defend the intentional tort claim, it was also not required to defend the breach of contract claim.” Reversed and remanded.