Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

The Michigan Court of Appeals, in <a href="http://publicdocs.courts.mi.gov:81/OPINIONS/FINAL/COA/20170711_C332482_41_332482.OPN.PDF" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Matouk v. Michigan Municipal League Liability &amp; Property Pool, No. 332482</a>, reversed the trial court’s decision and held that an insurance company was not contractually required to provide a defense for a police officer in a federal civil rights action because the complaint alleged conduct that was not within the scope of the officer’s employment as that term was used in the insurer’s policy.

contentpilot/introduction

To determine whether a policy covers an individual, courts look to the plain language of the policy and interpret the terms. When a term within a policy is not defined, such as “scope of employment” in Matouk, the term is given its plain and ordinary meeting. &nbsp;

core/paragraph

Looking at scope of employment in Matouk, the Court established that an individual is within the “scope of employment” if he or she is “engaged in the service of his master, or while about his master’s business.” The Court noted that an individual may easily engage in activities outside the scope of his or her employment during regular work hours; therefore, the fact that the individual is “on duty” during those work hours is not conclusive when determining the coverage of an insurance policy.

In Matouk, the Court found that even though the officer was on duty for another city, he was not part of the police force in the cities that conducted the investigation challenged in the complaint’s allegations, and that his city’s police force was not named in the lawsuit. Furthermore, the officer was also not asked to assist in the investigation in any way, so any involvement, alleged in the complaint, that he had in the investigation was outside the “temporal and spatial” scope of his employment. Ultimately, the Court found that the insurance company had no duty to provide a defense for the officer.

Partner

Jason L. Byrne

Appellate and Supreme Court Practice

Labor and Employment

Litigation and Dispute Resolution

COA: Insurer does not have to defend a lawsuit against a police officer that alleges conduct outside the of scope of employment

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.

COA: Insurer does not have to defend a lawsuit against a police officer that alleges conduct outside the of scope of employment

professionals