Drain backup; Barred losses under the completed-loss or loss-in-progress doctrines; Breach of contract; Professional negligence; Duty to procure coverage; Duty to advise

The court held that the trial court did not err by denying defendant-Auto-Owners summary disposition based on the completed-loss or loss-in-progress doctrines, or by finding plaintiff-Opera Block was entitled to summary disposition on its breach of contract claim against Auto-Owners. Also, Opera Block failed to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to causation related to its claim against defendant-Kiebler Insurance. The case involved an insurance dispute arising from a drain backup (water was backing up through the drains in Opera Block’s buildings). “Because the water-backup coverage was in place before the loss . . . , the trial court determined that Auto-Owners breached its duty to cover the loss to the policy’s limit of $50,000 per location as a matter of law.” It also found “Opera Block failed to establish a question of fact as to whether Kiebler Insurance negligently caused [it] to have less coverage than it should have had for the loss at issue.” On appeal, Auto-Owners claimed the losses “were complete or in progress before [Kiebler’s insurance agent, M] applied for the change in coverage. Thus, the losses were barred under the completed-loss or loss-in-progress doctrines.” Opera Block’s expert’s affidavit did “not create a question of fact as to whether Kiebler . . . negligently listed the insured properties as three locations rather than five.” Also, his “opinion that two insurers might have insured Opera Block for a higher level of water-backup coverage does not establish a question of fact as to whether Kiebler . . . breached its duty to procure the best coverage possible for Opera Block.” Opera Block relied “heavily on its claim that [M] must have misunderstood the nature of the insurance she procured for Opera Block, because, after the loss, she sent [Opera Block's onwer, F] an e-mail in which she indicated that Opera Block had $50,000 in water-backup coverage for each building.” M’s e-mail did not show “that she could have insured the five addresses as five sublocations or that there was better insurance available. The trial court did not err when it determined there was no genuine issue of material fact that Kiebler . . . properly insured the buildings as three locations when it procured the coverage changes” and “did not err when it determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Auto-Owners policy was the best available policy for Opera Block.” Opera Block argued “it presented evidence that established a question of fact as to each element of its negligence claims against” Kiebler, claiming “the trial court erred when it dismissed Opera Block’s claim that Kiebler” failed to procure the insurance F requested. The court held that the “trial court did not err when it determined there was no genuine issue of material fact that Kiebler” properly insured the buildings as three locations when it procured the coverage change, and did not err in finding “there was no genuine issue of material fact that the Auto-Owners policy was the best available policy for Opera Block.” Opera Block lastly claimed there was a question of fact as to whether Kiebler “breached a duty to advise arising from its special relationship with Opera Block.” The evidence showed “Auto-Owners would not have treated the five buildings as one location with five sublocations. Moreover, there was no evidence that any other insurer would have insured the five addresses as five separate locations. There was also no evidence that any insurer would have insured the buildings against water backups for more than what Auto-Owners did.”