Opinion ID: 788945
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: 2 Kalamazoo owns a commercial multi-tenant building in Kalamazoo, Michigan, which it began to renovate during late 2000. In order to accomplish the renovations, Kalamazoo hired Continental Construction (Continental) to raise the ceiling of the building's top floor. To facilitate construction of a new roof, Continental drilled holes in the existing roof, situating a steel beam in each hole; ultimately, a total of 12 such beams would support the beginnings of the new roof. 3 Around February 25, 2001, the city suffered a heavy rainstorm, which caused water to enter the building by way of the space in between the beams and the edges of the holes in the existing roof. In an effort to divert the streaming water into the building's drainage system, Continental covered the holes with visqueen (a dense plastic material). The visqueen did not succeed in its mission and the interior of the top three floors of the building sustained serious water damage as a consequence. Kalamazoo alleges that the total cost of repairing the damage, or the replacement cost value (RCV) of the loss, was $357,968. 1 4 In the aftermath of the storm, Kalamazoo settled its claim against Continental for $208,188, which it claims was the actual cash value (ACV) of the loss. 2 In exchange for this sum, Kalamazoo agreed to release Continental and its insurer, Amerisure, from any and all claims arising from the water damage. The date of the general release between Kalamazoo and Continental was September 6, 2001. Kalamazoo first notified Westfield of the release by letter dated November 1, 2001, in which letter Kalamazoo also made a claim for the $149,780 now in dispute. According to Kalamazoo, this amount represents the difference between the RCV and the ACV. On February 28, 2002, Westfield denied the claim on the grounds that Kalamazoo had breached express conditions in the parties' insurance policy (the policy) by releasing Continental and Amerisure from further claims and thereby waiving Westfield's right of subrogation against Continental and Amerisure without its consent. 3 On June 7, 2002, Westfield made what it calls a professional concession to the independent insurance agent handling [Kalamazoo's] business, Brief of Appellant at 10, in the form of a payment to Kalamazoo for $19,788.07 after investigating a June 27, 2001 claim Kalamazoo had submitted to Westfield in the amount of $24,537.63. 4