A Michigan appeals court has revived a coverage dispute involving American Select Insurance Company and a homeowner whose live-in boyfriend shot a neighborhood child from inside her residence.
In a published opinion issued on May 9, 2025, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed a trial court’s summary judgment that had favored the insurer, sending the case back for further proceedings.
The case arose from a June 2021 incident at the Ypsilanti, Michigan home of policyholder Michele Inhmathong. A child - identified in court as CAD - was retrieving his bicycle from the front yard when he was shot in the upper arm. The shot was fired from inside the house by Inhmathong’s live-in boyfriend, Ryan Cyong Le-Nguyen, who claimed he heard banging sounds and, fearing gunfire, fired a single round through the window without checking outside.
Le-Nguyen had lived with Inhmathong for more than two years but was not a named insured under her homeowner’s policy with American Select. Following the shooting, the child’s guardian filed suit against both Inhmathong and Le-Nguyen, alleging negligence for failing to secure firearms and maintain a safe residence.
American Select responded by filing a declaratory judgment action, arguing that the injury did not result from an “occurrence” - defined in the policy as an “accident” - and that coverage was barred by the “expected or intended injury” exclusion. The Washtenaw County Circuit Court agreed, granting summary judgment in favor of the insurer in January 2024.
But the appellate panel disagreed. Writing for the court, Judge Noah P. Hood explained that the term “accident” wasn’t defined in the policy, so Michigan law supplies a default definition: “an undesigned contingency, a happening by chance, something not naturally to be expected.” Importantly, the court emphasized that whether an incident qualifies as an accident must be assessed from the perspective of the insured - in this case, Inhmathong - not the person who fired the gun.
The court noted that Inhmathong was not present at the time of the shooting and testified that she had no knowledge of prior threats or confrontations involving Le-Nguyen. While she acknowledged that she knew he kept firearms in the house - and had asked him to remove them - she described the incident as completely unexpected. The court concluded that reasonable minds could differ on whether the event was accidental from her point of view.
On the exclusion clause, the court found that the question of whether Inhmathong “expected or intended” the injury raised fact issues that couldn’t be resolved without further proceedings. Though the policy excluded coverage for bodily injury “expected or intended by an insured,” there was no direct evidence that Inhmathong anticipated the shooting or should have expected such a result from allowing Le-Nguyen to remain in the home with firearms.
The decision sends the case back to the trial court for further development, where the ultimate question of whether American Select owes a duty to defend or indemnify Inhmathong will be evaluated in light of the full facts.
For insurance professionals, the case underscores the continuing importance of clearly defined policy language - particularly around terms like “accident” - and the nuanced application of exclusions for intentional conduct. It also reinforces that courts may not impute the actions or intentions of third parties to the named insured when interpreting coverage.
