Singh, RX, PLLC v. Selective Ins. Co. of S.C.
24-1678
6th Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- Singh operates a Michigan pharmacy, SRX Specialty Care, and purchased business liability and professional liability insurance from Selective Insurance Company and American Casualty Company.
- Janssen Sciences, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, sued SRX in New York for allegedly buying and selling counterfeit HIV medication, asserting trademark, advertising, and unfair competition claims.
- Both Selective and American Casualty refused to defend or indemnify SRX, arguing the claims did not fall within their policies’ coverages or were expressly excluded.
- SRX sued the insurers in federal court for breach of contract and sought declaratory relief that would compel the insurers to cover damages from the Janssen case.
- The district court granted summary judgment for the insurers, finding the Janssen claims excluded by policy language, and SRX appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff’s Argument | Defendant’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Selective’s policy covers the Janssen claims | Janssen claims are not excluded professional services; involve admin tasks | Claims arise from core pharmacy functions, thus are excluded professional services | Not covered—claims fall under the professional services exclusion |
| Whether American Casualty’s policy covers claims by corporate entities like Janssen | Policy definitions conflict; personal injury should cover entity plaintiffs | Endorsement specifies "claims" must be by a natural person; definitions not in conflict | Not covered—policy applies only to claims by natural persons |
| Whether Selective must defend/indemnify SRX | Allegations arguably within coverage trigger duty to defend/indemnify | Exclusion for professional services means no arguable coverage | No duty to defend or indemnify |
| Whether American Casualty’s policy is illusory if only covers suits by natural persons | Coverage is illusory—business tort claims typically by businesses | Policy still covers personal injury claims by individuals; not illusory | Policy not illusory—potential real coverage exists |
Key Cases Cited
- Am. Bumper & Mfg. Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 550 N.W.2d 475 (Mich. 1996) (setting standard for insurer's broad duty to defend when claims arguably fall within policy coverage)
- Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Mich. v. Nikkel, 596 N.W.2d 915 (Mich. 1999) (insurance contracts’ defined terms given their precise meaning)
- Wasik v. Auto Club Ins. Ass’n, 992 N.W.2d 332 (Mich. Ct. App. 2022) (ambiguous provisions construing against insurer)
- Orchard, Hiltz & McCliment, Inc. v. Phoenix Ins. Co., 676 F. App’x 515 (6th Cir. 2017) (professional services exclusions interpreted broadly under Michigan law)