Insurance; Agent’s failure to procure requested coverage; Holton v A+ Ins Assocs, Inc; Comparative negligence; Insurance policy review; MCL 600.6304; Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co; Renewal rule; Duty to read policy; Parmet Homes, Inc v Republic Ins Co; Damages; Apportionment; Warren v McLouth Steel Corp

The court held that the trial court did not err by rejecting comparative-fault arguments against plaintiff-Trailer X-Press and defendant-Jones, but remand was required for further articulation of the apportionment of the damages award. The appeal arose after Trailer X-Press obtained a judgment against Jones and defendant-LWJ Trucking for damage to a refrigerated trailer, and defendants then prevailed against third-party defendant-NTA on a tort theory for failure to procure requested insurance. On appeal, the court held that Trailer X-Press could not be assigned comparative fault because its employee had no legal duty to inform LWJ Trucking that the trailer lacked coverage, and “without owing a duty to the injured party,” there could be no proximate cause or “fault” for comparative-fault purposes. The court next held that Jones’s failure to read the new Canal policy did not constitute comparative fault because the trial court found he “reasonably believed” it was an effective renewal of the prior Lancer policy, and under the renewal exception an insured has no duty to read a renewed policy without actual notice of alteration. The court emphasized the trial court’s credibility findings, including “NTA’s failure to produce the ‘very important’ Internal Equipment List[.]” But the court remanded because the judgment did not explain how the $127,640.02 award was calculated, and “remand for a determination of damage apportionment is proper” when unrecoverable expenses may have been included. Affirmed in part and remanded.