Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company of Michigan is asking a federal judge to let it walk away from a multimillion-dollar tab Wal-Mart wants it to pick up - after Wal-Mart, by Farm Bureau's account, already stipulated that its own employee caused the accident.
The declaratory relief action was filed on April 23, 2026 in the US District Court for the Western District of Michigan. It is the opening move in a dispute that will be familiar, and probably uncomfortable, to anyone who writes or handles vendor additional insured coverage.
The story, as Farm Bureau tells it, starts on January 16, 2023, at a Wal-Mart Superstore in Amite, Louisiana. A shipment of plants from Farm Bureau's insured, Neal Mast and Son Greenhouses, was being unloaded when a rack allegedly fell on a man named Jeffrey Lewis. The hi/lo - a forklift - was being operated by a Wal-Mart employee, Brian Matherne. Lewis sued Wal-Mart, the greenhouse, Matherne, and Peak Transportation.
Greenhouse settled its piece in June 2025. Lewis and Mary Ann Crane signed a General Release and Indemnity Agreement dated June 11, 2025, agreeing to "completely indemnify and hold harmless" the greenhouse from any further claims "whether such claim is made by way of indemnity, contribution, subrogation, or otherwise."
Then came the twist that makes this case worth watching. Farm Bureau says that in or around June 26, 2025, Wal-Mart entered a stipulation on the record agreeing that the accident "was caused solely and exclusively through the negligence and fault of defendant, Wal-Mart Louisiana, LLC's employee, Brain Matherne." Wal-Mart later settled with Lewis and Crane.
On or about January 7, 2026 - roughly a week before its own mediation, according to Farm Bureau - Wal-Mart turned around and tendered the bill to the insurer as an additional insured, seeking $4,500,000 in indemnity plus $239,124.51 in legal fees.
Farm Bureau's pitch to the court is built on language coverage professionals see every day. It says the Walmart General Merchandise Supplier Agreement never clearly required the greenhouse to indemnify Wal-Mart for Wal-Mart's sole negligence, so there is no "insured contract" under the policy. It points to the vendor endorsement's sole-negligence carve-out, which excludes bodily injury "arising out of the sole negligence of the vendor," and to a companion exclusion for liability "assumed" in a contract. It also flags an "other insurance" clause that, in Farm Bureau's view, puts its policy in excess position at best - and out of the picture entirely if the injury is treated as arising from unloading a motor vehicle.
For insurers and claims teams, the appeal is obvious. A national retailer, a late tender on the eve of mediation, a recorded stipulation of sole fault, and a claimant-signed release that loops back to protect the insured - all in a single file.
The allegations are drawn from Farm Bureau's filing and have not been tested in court. The defendants have not yet responded, and no ruling has been issued.
