Greenman v. Michigan Mutual Insurance

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that business pursuits exclusion in homeowner's policy precluded coverage for sexual harassment claim, in part because claim not actionable in the absence of an employer-employee relationship
• finding no coverage for alleged mental distress injuries arising out of sexual harassment and discrimination claim on grounds that injuries lacked any physical manifesta tion
• construing a homeowner’s policy and finding the insured’s sexual harassment of a co-worker not covered because, among other reasons, the insured’s intentional acts could not be deemed an accidental occurrence
• construing a homeowner's policy and finding the insured's sexual harassment of a co-worker not covered because, among other reasons, the insured's intentional acts could not be deemed an accidental occurrence
• construing a homeowner’s policy and finding the insured’s sexual harassment of a co-worker not covered because, among other reasons, the insured’s intentional acts could not'be deemed an accidental occurrence
• \[t]he complained of acts themselves need not be performed for profit; the acts need only be performed during the business pursuit of the insured\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).