Ensuing Damages Win: How Fabian, Sklar, King & Liss Secured $5 Million for a Michigan Homeowner
Insurers love boilerplate exclusions—until a court enforces the fine print in favor of policyholders. In Farm Bureau Gen. Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Reemmer, our managing partner, Jason J. Liss and our team transformed a $414 k payout into a $5 million recovery for a Clarkston homeowner. Oakland County Circuit Judge Shalina Kumar sided with us on every key point: frozen-pipe exclusions, ensuing-loss doctrine, and 12% penalty interest under MCL 500.2006. Below, learn how we won—and why choosing Michigan’s premier property-insurance law firm can flip leverage in your next dispute.
The Case: Wind, Frozen Pipes, and a Shattered Chandelier
Our clients 20,000-sq-ft Clarkston estate endured three losses inside 12 months:
- April 2014 windstorm stripped shingles.
- Two frozen-pipe breaks flooded interiors during winter 2015.
- Restoration crew dropped a chandelier, damaging fixtures and flooring.
Farm Bureau paid $414,776—then sued its own insured, claiming “adequate heat” wasn’t maintained. We counter-sued for full dwelling, personal-property, and code-upgrade benefits. Judge Kumar denied the carrier’s summary-disposition motion and granted ours, compelling appraisal under the policy’s dispute clause (learn more about appraisal clauses).
Key Argument: Ensuing-Loss Doctrine Beats Boilerplate
Carriers often cite pipe-break exclusions. We showed:
- The word “adequate” appears nowhere in Farm Bureau’s frozen-pipe clause.
- Boiler logs proved the heating system ran continuously.
- Under Michigan’s ensuing-loss doctrine, even if pipe fracture is excluded, water damage that follows remains covered
The court agreed: Farm Bureau could not hide behind the initial pipe break to escape multi-million-dollar remediation costs.
Outcome: $4.77 M Replacement Cost + $1.2 M Interest
An appraisal panel set replacement-cost damages at $4,769,833 (ACV $3,970,187). Because Farm Bureau delayed payment beyond statutory deadlines, Judge Kumar tacked on $1.2 million in 12% interest under MCL 500.2006. Total recovery: $5 million+. Explore similar victories on our results page.
Why Your Policy’s “Ensuing-Loss” Language Is Gold
“A frozen or corroded pipe may be excluded,” notes managing partner Jason J. Liss, “but the torrent of water that ruins drywall and hardwood is almost always covered.” Insurers rarely explain that distinction. Our job is to spotlight ensuing-loss coverage early—often adding six-figure value to a claim.
Put Precedent-Setting Litigators on Your Side
From $7 M industrial-fire verdicts to precedent in the Sixth Circuit, Fabian, Sklar, King & Liss battles insurers every day. We:
- Dissect exclusions line-by-line.
- Deploy engineers, CPAs, and valuation experts.
- Invoke appraisal, DIFS complaints, or litigation—whichever moves the carrier fastest.
This content is for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.