Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Gardner White Furniture Co., Inc. v. Affiliate Fm Insurance Co.

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

July 13, 2017

Gardner White Furniture Co., Inc., Plaintiff,
v.
Affiliated FM Insurance Co., Defendant.

          Judith E. Levy United States District Judge

         Mag. Judge Anthony P. Patti

          OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [18] AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT [17]

          JUDITH E. LEVY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court are plaintiff Gardner White Furniture Co., Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment (Dkt. 17), and defendant Affiliated FM Insurance Co.'s motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. 18.)

         For the reasons set forth below, defendant's motion for summary judgment is granted, and plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment is denied.

         I. Background

         Plaintiff Gardner White Furniture Co., Inc. operates furniture retail sales facilities and warehouses in Michigan. (Dkt. 12 at 1-2.) Defendant Affiliated FM Insurance Co. is an insurance company that issued an insurance policy to plaintiff. (Id. at 2.)

         On or about August 19, 2014, plaintiff sustained damage from a severe storm to its retail store located at 7680 Telegraph Road, Taylor, Michigan. (Dkt. 12 at 3.)

         Thereafter, plaintiff submitted a claim for storm and wind loss to defendant. On November 6, 2014, defendant sent plaintiff an advance payment on the claim for $200, 000. (Dkt. 19-2.)

         On December 11, 2014, plaintiff's contractor, Professional Renovation Services, LLC (“PRS”), provided plaintiff with a preliminary loss valuation of the repair work, which listed a replacement cost value (“RCV”) of $545, 867.15, actual cash value (“ACV”) of the loss of $416, 684.09, and depreciation of $129, 183.06. (Dkt. 17 at 14; Dkt. 17-4 at 2.)

         On January 16, 2015, a proposed valuation was discussed by the parties. This proposal indicated that the replacement cost value was $545, 510.88, the actual cash value was $335, 816.11, and withheld depreciation was therefore $209, 694.77. (Dkt. 17-4 at 3.) On January 20, 2015, defendant accepted the proposed amounts. (Dkt. 19-4 (email from Sorrell to Kniivila).)

         After these discussions, defendant provided a total of $362, 240.29 (including the $200, 000 advance), consisting of $36, 424.18 for emergency service costs and $325, 816.11, which was the actual cash value after applying the $10, 000 deductible, to indemnify plaintiff. (Dkt. 15 at 3; Dkt. 17 at 15; Dkt. 19-2 at 2-3; Dkt. 19-8 at 2; 19-9 at 2.) As plaintiff was informed along with the February 18, 2015 payment of $125, 816.11, the payment “represents the ACV [actual cash value] payment of the above captioned claim, ” which added to the $200, 000 advance payment, represented the entire ACV agreed to on January 20, 2015. (Dkt. 19-8.)

         Plaintiff claims that after repairs began, it discovered the work needed was far more extensive than originally estimated. (Dkt. 12 at 4.)

         On October 1, 2015, “following the completion of the repairs to the Property” (Dkt. 17 at 15), plaintiff submitted a revised bill to defendant, stating that the actual cost of repairs completed was $576, 626.39, which was over the RCV of $545, 510.88 agreed on by the parties. (Dkt. 21 at 10; Dkt. 17-5 at 2-3.) Because the actual cost of repairs exceeded the RCV, plaintiff requested the remaining $209, 694.77 in withheld depreciation. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.