Winery Hill on Center Road; Fall colors on the Old Mission Peninsula | Jane Boursaw Photo
Winery Hill on Center Road; Fall colors on the Old Mission Peninsula | Jane Boursaw Photo
Feel free to share this post...

To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.

(Editor’s Note: Mike Dettmer writes about Peninsula Township’s Liability Insurance with regard to the winery lawsuit. Read on for his thoughts. -jb)

I would like to address the criticism expressed by certain members of the Lou Santucci/Curt Peterson slate of Peninsula Township trustee candidates – Kate Jerman, JP Milliken and Fred Swaffer — that: 1) the Township should not have defended against the winery lawsuit; and 2) that the Township is not sharing how much insurance will be available if the wineries get the monetary award they are demanding.

Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Keep the Gazette Going.

Recent public comments made by Swaffer and Jerman during the Ron Jolly radio show regarding the Township’s lack of transparency about its liability insurance betrays a dangerous naivety. They fail to understand that the issues of coverage and exclusion are not black and white. As with any liability policy, an insurance company’s policy may cover or not cover a particular risk depending upon both the policy language and its interpretation as applied to that risk.

From my experience as a CEO of a legal malpractice insurance company, I also understand the wording of both coverage and exclusion can at best be ambiguous, and ultimately rely on a judicial decision. I have reviewed the policies that may provide coverage for the Township, and they are no different than all policies in regard to claim coverage periods and coverage itself, as well as the exclusions the companies intend to rely on.

Each of these insurers has written formal Declination Letters, essentially indicating why and what risks they will not cover. Those conclusions really can’t be weighed and acted upon until the court makes its final ruling on the allegations litigated by the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP).

(Editor’s Note: Real all winery lawsuit news and opinions here. -jb)

Each count of its complaint may give rise to either coverage or exclusion. Coverage will depend on how the carriers interpret some of the many circumstances of this case.

For example, the coverage is defined by limits per “each occurrence.” With 11 different entities involved in suing Peninsula Township, would the carriers interpret that as 11 different “occurrences”? Or would the question of coverage limits be applied to the aggregate total demand of more than 130 million dollars?

Would particular wineries be covered and others not covered? Would there be coverage for the alleged constitutional violations? For the alleged “1983” civil rights violations? Some of the wineries’ claims go back 10 to 20 years. Therefore, which policy covers which coverage year?

The real question is whether each winery is likely to succeed in holding this community responsible for more than $10 million each in speculative “lost profits” – an unprecedented reward for such novel legal claims.

The Township Board necessarily awaits the court’s final ruling before it and its insurers have the facts to determine the coverage issues. It would be misleading and irresponsible for the Township Board to state they anticipate some particular level of insurance coverage before that time.

The policies insure for both damages and the cost of the Township’s defense attorney defending this lawsuit (the cost of defense). I suggest the insurers have paid the Township’s defense counsel hundreds of thousands of dollars that we, as taxpayers, have avoided. There is good and bad in that, though.

In my opinion, the Township’s initial counsel (blessed and hired by the insurers) was not up to the task of defending this lawsuit. Luckily, the Township insisted that the insurers replace him. The Township is now represented by competent counsel who have carried the ball in the last couple of years.

But, in review of these policies, let me suggest the bad news is that the aggregate amount of indemnity coverage is not at all likely to cover the level of damages the wineries demand. The actual number of a damage award, if any, is left to the court’s determination.

Let me close with a final thought: Swaffer, Jerman and Milliken appear to be aligned with the wineries’ litigation demands. If elected, they will have to weigh what is in the best interests of the residents of the township – giving in to the wineries’ or maintaining the cultural heritage and integrity of our community. Are they up to that task?

-Mike Dettmer

(Read all Peninsula Township Election 2024 News, Opinions and Candidate Questionnaires here. -jb)

Also Read…

SUPPORT YOUR INDEPENDENT LOCAL NEWSPAPER: I started Old Mission Gazette in 2015 because I felt a calling to provide the Old Mission Peninsula community with local news. After decades of writing for newspapers and magazines like the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Family Circle and Ladies' Home Journal, I really just wanted to write about my own community where I grew up on a cherry farm and raised my own family. So I started my own newspaper.

Because Old Mission Gazette is a "Reader Supported Newspaper" -- meaning it exists because of your financial support -- I hope you'll consider tossing a few bucks our way if I mention your event, your business, your organization or your news item, or if you simply love reading about what's happening on the OMP. In a time when local news is becoming a thing of the past, supporting an independent community newspaper is more important now than ever. Thank you so much for your support! -Jane Boursaw, Editor/Publisher, Old Mission Gazette

To keep the Gazette going, click here to make a donation.

To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.

Bay View Insurance of Traverse City Michigan

4 COMMENTS

  1. Since unlike the rest of us you have seen the insurance policies how about disclosing what the maximum liability they cover will be.
    In other words is it a 50 million policy a 100 million or what?
    It seems the township letter once said they didn’t have sufficient coverage. How about it? Or do you want to keep this to yourself.

  2. This article has some informative information on how insurance coverage may apply in the Winery Lawsuit. Unfortunately misinformation is mixed in with facts in an attempt to propagandize against candidates running for election in Peninsula Twp. and to make the election about the winery lawsuit which it is not. Where did the challengers say or write that “the Township should not have defended against the winery lawsuit”? Further the author says, “Swaffer, Jerman and Milliken appear to be aligned with the wineries’ litigation demands.” This statement is absolutely incorrect and untrue. Why does the author spread such false information?

  3. Michael thanks for the article. You have reviewed the insurance policies & indicate they cover both damages & township attorney costs. You indicated that the insurers wrote final declination letters & that coverage is defined by per each occurrence. You did not disclose what the maximum coverage would be? Please clarify the following since the township’s citizens so badly want factual data.
    1. Are the township insurance policies included in the gag order issued by the judge who ordered that the settlement letters remain confidential & could only be reviewed by the parties’s counsel & the judge’s chambers?
    2. Are you part of the township’s counsel & thus have approval to review?
    3. If the insurance policies are covered under the gag order & you are part of the township’s counsel, how can you disclose specifics to the public?
    4. If they are not part of the gag order then why are you and the township not giving us citizens the maximum liability coverage?
    Thank you for clarifying my questions.

  4. I don’t recall Mike Detmer responding to answering critical questions. Even ones challenging his claims. Here’s another one. Mike you say, “ The policies insure for both damages and the cost of the Township’s defense attorney defending this lawsuit (the cost of defense). I suggest the insurers have paid the Township’s defense counsel hundreds of thousands of dollars that we, as taxpayers, have avoided. There is good and bad in that, though.” Ok you seem to be in the inner circle of the lawsuit. How much money has our insurance actually paid the twp. ?

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.