Opinion ID: 714160
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Michigan Court of Appeals Decisions.

Text: 15 While Ziebart's appeal was pending in this court, the Michigan Court of Appeals issued opinions in two cases bearing heavily on the instant case. In the first case, the court reversed the judgment based on the jury verdict against Ziebart. LaDuke, 535 N.W.2d at 203-04. The court held that (1) the record did not support the conclusion that Ziebart had actual knowledge of the fired employee's dangerous propensities, or of threats that he had made toward LaDuke, and (2) the fired employee's knowledge of his own violent tendencies could not be imputed to Ziebart. Thus, the court held, Ziebart had not committed an intentional tort that would, under the language of the Act, remove the LaDuke estate's claim from workers' compensation coverage. 16 In the second case, in which these parties were not involved, the court held that the Act's definition of an intentional tort does not entirely overlap with the language bodily injury intentionally caused in an insurance contract clause precisely identical to the one in the instant case. Cavalier Mfg. v. Employers Ins., 211 Mich.App. 330, 535 N.W.2d 583, 585 (1995), application for leave to appeal filed, No. 103991 (Mich. Aug. 15, 1995). Thus, the court held, such a clause in a policy did not exclude from coverage a situation similar to the one alleged in the LaDuke estate's wrongful death complaint: where the employer had actual knowledge that an injury was certain to occur and willfully disregarded that knowledge. See id. 535 N.W.2d at 589. Under Cavalier, an event could constitute an intentional tort for purposes of the Act, but that same event might not be a bodily injury intentionally caused under the exclusion provision of an insurance policy.