In Royal Property Group, LLC v. Prime Ins. Co., No. 249043, 2005 WL 2030918 (Mich. App. Aug. 23, 2005), a Michigan appeals court held that a coinsurance clause was not ambiguous and did not violate public policy.

An apartment building owned by Royal Property Group was destroyed by fire. The building was insured under a commercial property policy issued by Prime Insurance Company with a $600,000 policy limit. The building's actual cash value (ACV) was between $814,270 and $1,280,769 and its replacement cost value (RCV) was $3,659,396. Prime paid Royal $372,270.16 for the loss. Royal claimed that the coinsurance clause was improperly applied.