Bridging Communities, Inc. v. Hartford Casualty Insurance Company

Summary

The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed summary disposition for Hartford Casualty Insurance Company in an action concerning coverage for unsolicited fax advertisements that violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The court held that the policy’s statutory right to privacy exclusion barred personal and advertising injury coverage because the plaintiffs asserted only TCPA violations and identified no independent common-law liability. The court also concluded that the fax transmissions did not constitute a covered occurrence and, alternatively, that the expected-or-intended injury exclusion precluded property damage coverage.

Holdings

1. The statutory right to privacy exclusion barred coverage for the TCPA damages because plaintiffs failed to establish liability for damages that Top Flite would have had in the absence of the TCPA.
2. The statutory right to privacy exclusion was unambiguous and enforceable as written.
3. The intentional transmission of the fax advertisements was not an accident and therefore did not constitute a covered occurrence.
4. Even if the fax transmissions qualified as an occurrence, the expected-or-intended-injury exclusion independently precluded property damage coverage.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the policy's statutory right to privacy exclusion barred personal and advertising injury coverage for TCPA damages when plaintiffs had no viable common-law privacy claim independent of the TCPA.
2. Whether the transmission of unsolicited fax advertisements constituted an occurrence or accident under the policy's property damage coverage.
3. Whether the policy's expected-or-intended-injury exclusion independently barred property damage coverage.
4. Whether the statutory right to privacy exclusion was ambiguous because a later policy expressly referenced TCPA violations.

Disposition

affirmed