Big Win for Victims: Michigan Court of Appeals Finds Insurance Coverage in Shooting Case

A recent published decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals (COA #370037) found the commonly used language in a homeowners policy provided insurance coverage for a shooting committed by a person in the home who was not an insured—providing an avenue for a shooting victim to finally get compensation for injuries caused by the shooting. 

Here’s why this matters

Insurance companies typically had no obligation to cover injuries caused by shootings on private property because policies exclude intentional conduct. That meant if you or your child were injured because someone shot a gun while inside a home of residence, the company insuring the home would routinely refuse to provide any coverage no matter what the circumstances. 

Insurance companies would argue the incident wasn’t an “accident,” and victims were left without compensation.

But this case acknowledges an avenue for recovery, under certain circumstances. 

What Happened in this Michigan Legal Case

In Ypsilanti, a homeowner had a homeowner’s insurance policy on her property, where she lived with her boyfriend. One day her boyfriend became fearful of something he heard outside the home and blindly fired a round from his handgun out the front window, striking a neighborhood child in the arm. The child’s family sued the homeowner and the shooter for negligently failing to inspect for dangerous conditions (a gun) and maintain the property in a reasonably safe condition 

Instead of covering the homeowner under her policy, the insurance company filed a lawsuit of its own seeking a declaration that its policy did not provide coverage. It argued that the shooting wasn’t an “occurrence” (which the policy defined to be “an accident.”) under the policy, and they shouldn’t have to cover anything because pulling the trigger of a gun is an intentional act.

The trial court agreed, ruling that the boyfriend was not an insured so not covered under the policy and the shooting was not an occurrence/accident.

The Court of Appeals Reverses the Trial Court Ruling

In a notable, published 2-1 decision, the Michigan Court of Appeals disagreed — and reversed the lower court’s decision. The majority held that:

• The shooter was not an insured and so the focus was not on the shooting but on the homeowner permitting the reckless storage, maintenance and use of a firearm on her property;
• The injured child’s lawsuit was based on negligence, not intentional conduct;
• There is a question of fact for the jury to decide whether the homeowner intended for the shooting to happen;
• And the court said there is a “genuine issue of material fact” as to whether the shooting was a natural and foreseeable result of the homeowner’s choices to allow her boyfriend to stay in her home and to store the gun there — another issue for the jury to ultimately decide, not a judge.

This ruling reinstates the lawsuit and sends it back to the lower court for further proceedings, most likely a trial or settlement.

Why This Is a Big Deal

This case is notable in that insurance companies previously were able to avoid having to provide coverage in cases like this, arguing that the intentional discharge of a firearm always excludes insurance coverage under any circumstances. But now, the Michigan Court of Appeals says that if a homeowner’s negligence allowed a dangerous condition, like a gun to exist on the property in a negligent manner or under negligent circumstances their insurance coverage may apply to the case. That means:

• Victims of preventable gun violence occurring from a home or residence may now have a clearer path to compensation.
• Homeowners can be held accountable if they negligently allow dangerous conditions (like guns and people) into their homes.
• Insurance companies may have a duty to defend and pay damages in negligence cases involving firearms under certain circumstances like this case. 

---

At Giroux Pappas, we believe that negligent homeowners and the insurance companies behind them must be held accountable when innocent people are harmed. This decision is a major victory for personal injury victims, especially children and families impacted by senseless, preventable violence.

If you or someone you love has been injured due to dangerous conditions on someone’s property — even if a gun was involved — we’re here to help you understand your rights. Insurance coverage may apply, even if it didn’t seem like it before.

---

Do you know someone injured at or near someone’s residence as a result of a shooting? Don’t assume there’s no coverage — talk to us first. Call for a free consultation: 248-531-8665

Disclaimer: The recent Michigan Court of Appeals ruling referenced herein does not involve any clients or cases handled by Giroux Pappas Trial Attorneys. We are sharing this information solely for educational and informational purposes. As trial and appellate attorneys, we remain actively informed about developments in Michigan law that may impact our legal community and the clients we serve.