A Michigan manufacturer is suing Cincinnati Insurance over a denied claim for a building collapse that followed the snowiest month the region has seen in 135 years.
Calumet Electronics Corporation filed suit in federal court last week, arguing the carrier wrongfully refused to cover damage to a historic building after its roof gave way under record-breaking snowfall in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
The building collapsed on Feb. 27, following what the complaint describes as extraordinary winter conditions. The Keweenaw Peninsula recorded 315 inches of snowfall during the 2024-2025 season – nearly 100 inches above average and among the highest totals in recorded history. February alone brought 91 inches.
The lawsuit, filed in the Western District of Michigan, alleges breach of contract and seeks a declaration that the loss falls within the terms of Calumet's commercial property policy.
At the heart of the dispute is how the policy's collapse coverage should apply when extreme weather meets an aging structure.
The building in question, known as the Machine Shop, sits in the Calumet Historic District, a National Historic Landmark area of buildings and property honoring the region's copper-mining history. The structure reflects the heavy masonry and brick construction characteristic of the area's historical industrial buildings.
Calumet bought the property in 2021 and performed targeted repairs, including roof work, to make it suitable for storage use while the company built a new manufacturing facility nearby. The insurer's own loss control representatives inspected the building on several occasions during underwriting and policy renewals, the complaint states, and continued covering it.
Then came the snow.
In the week before the collapse, snow water equivalent levels indicated unusually dense, moisture-heavy snow due to fluctuating temperatures. Satellite and meteorological data confirmed dense, drifting lake-effect snow across the peninsula. High winds created drifting and uneven loading on the roof – conditions the complaint describes as the direct cause of the failure.
Calumet filed a claim the same day. Nearly four months later, Cincinnati Insurance denied it.
The insurer relied heavily on a report from EFI Global, an engineering firm it hired to investigate. That report, according to the complaint, used selective snowfall data and erroneously concluded that 2024-2025 produced less snow than in several prior winters – a finding Calumet says is directly rebutted by objective data showing the relevant snowfall and snow water equivalent.
The complaint alleges that for reasons that remain unclear, Cincinnati Insurance and EFI Global chose not to consider this publicly available information.
The policy in question provides blanket building coverage on a replacement cost basis, with a blanket limit of $30,219,792. It defines "Specified Causes of Loss" to include, among other perils, the weight of snow, ice, or sleet.
The policy includes a collapse coverage extension that covers an abrupt falling down or caving in of a building with the result that the structure cannot be occupied for its intended purpose. The extension provides coverage where a collapse is caused by hidden decay unknown to the insured, or by defective renovation – provided the collapse is caused in part by a specified cause of loss such as weight of snow.
The complaint emphasizes that the extension does not require snow to be the sole cause. It argues that any internal deterioration of the building's historic beams or framing could not have been observed by a layperson from approximately 30 feet below on the ground. Calumet says it was not aware of an immediate threat of sudden collapse or obvious decay, having conducted repairs to make the building suitable for storage use.
Cincinnati Insurance's denial relied on certain exclusions that, according to the complaint, do not apply either when a specified cause of loss occurs or when a coverage extension such as the collapse extension applies. The carrier's reasoning, Calumet argues, fails under the express terms of the policy.
After the initial denial in June, Calumet's broker, Acrisure, contacted the insurer in support of the claim and repeatedly requested reconsideration. Representatives met with Cincinnati Insurance on July 21, but the insurer refused to substantively discuss the merits of the claim, according to the complaint.
Calumet formally requested reconsideration on July 25, citing the policy's terms and additional information not considered by the insurer or EFI Global. The response, received Aug. 11, did not address the reconsideration request but instead instructed Calumet to ensure the building remains in its current state for additional inspection. Counsel for the insurer reiterated that instruction on Aug. 22.
On Oct. 1, after further demands from Calumet's counsel, Cincinnati Insurance affirmed its initial denial.
The building remains in its collapsed and unusable state, causing what the complaint describes as a major blight on Calumet's property and significant safety concerns with winter approaching.
Calumet is seeking a court declaration that the collapse is a covered loss and that Cincinnati Insurance is obligated to provide coverage. The company also seeks judgment for breach of contract in an amount exceeding $75,000, to be proven at trial, statutory penalty interest under Michigan law, and attorney fees and costs.
No court ruling has been issued. The case is in its early stages, with no final determination made.
The dispute illustrates tensions that can arise when severe weather events intersect with older structures and policy language open to interpretation. The outcome may turn on how courts read collapse coverage when multiple potential causes combine – and whether carriers can rely on engineering reports that appear to conflict with publicly available weather data.
