To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
One of the three insurance companies for Peninsula Township has filed a lawsuit against the Township, Protect the Peninsula, and the Wineries of Old Mission Peninsula (WOMP). U.S. Specialty Insurance Company (USSIC) filed a “Complaint for Declaratory Judgment” on August 8, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan Southern Division.
Peninsula Township held a policy with USSIC from July 21, 2013 to July 21, 2014, which included a $6 million aggregate limit of liability, a $5 million limit of liability for each wrongful act, and a $100,000 limit of liability for a regulatory taking of private property.
Old Mission Gazette is Reader Supported.
Click Here to Donate and Keep the Gazette Going.
In the complaint, USSIC argues that they are not obligated to provide insurance coverage to the Township for the nearly $50 million in damages awarded to WOMP in the ongoing winery lawsuit. They say the wrongful acts occurred outside of the policy period from 2013 to 2014, because the Court found that damages could only be awarded in relation to the time period beginning on Oct. 21, 2017 — three years prior to the filing of WOMP’s First Amended Complaint on Jan. 4, 2021 — and ending on Dec. 13, 2022, the date that the Township repealed the Zoning Ordinance.
View WOMP’s Jan. 4, 2021 First Amended Complaint here.
However, on Jan. 25, 2021, the Township tendered a copy of the First Amended Complaint to USSIC, and on Oct. 29, 2021, USSIC issued coverage correspondence to the Township in which they agreed to defend the lawsuit under the policy, subject to a reservation of rights. (Note: I don’t see a time-frame in WOMP’s Jan. 4, 2021 First Amended Complaint, so it may have included USSIC’s coverage in preceding years.)
Additionally, USSIC claims that coverage is barred under Exclusion 10, which excludes losses related to eminent domain or similar takings. USSIC also asserts that even if coverage applied, the damages fall under a “regulatory taking” subject to a $100,000 policy limit. They also argue that they have no duty to appeal the judgment or pay appeal-related costs or bonds beyond that $100,000 cap.
In a statement released today, the Township notes, “Understandably, Peninsula Township residents and the public are interested in knowing how much coverage is available, but because each insurance company has a different response to the Order and Judgment entered by Judge Maloney, we have been awaiting their final decisions.
“We are disappointed in U.S. Specialty Insurance Company’s decision to sue the Township, especially since the Township timely paid its premiums. But, as we have been doing in the case brought by the Wineries, which we recently appealed, we will vigorously defend the Township and its residents in this new action and seek to recover any and all insurance coverage that is due.”
Township Supervisor Maura Sanders says they hope to have an update on the nature of USSIC’s complaint after the Township Board’s 6 p.m. meeting in closed session on Tuesday, August 12.
The board’s regular meeting will take place at 7 p.m. View the agenda and packet on the Township’s website here.
Also Read…
To view or leave comments on this story, click HERE.
This is very confusing to me. If that insurance company’s policy period was only for one year from July 2013 to July 2014 , why are they even involved in this whole mess and why are they suing? It doesn’t make sense that they would be liable for anything in the law suit. I’m sure it’s more nuanced than this but confusing.
It IS confusing, Nancy. I believe it has something to do with the time-frame in WOMP’s First Amended Complaint filed on Jan. 4, 2021. I’m sifting through it and will add to the story if I find anything. Otherwise, we may know more at the 7 p.m. Town Board meeting tomorrow.
Here’s WOMP’s First Amended Complaint:
https://www.oldmission.net/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/WOMPs-Complaint-Against-Peninsula-Township.pdf
One of the many questions that needs to be answered is:
Who funds the townships answer to this motion? I don’t see one of the two other insurance companies paying for the township to defend against the other insurance company. Maybe I’m wrong. but we should know who bears this cost. Also did the other insurance companies file seeking an out for paying the damages.
Maybe we’ll get some answers this week.
Sorry for the duplicate don’t know how to delete it.
No worries, Lou. I got it.