are insurable under Michigan law, there can be no overriding public policy concerns in providing coverage for business injury under antitrust laws. Beaumont reads the Michigan cases more accurately than Federal. Under those cases, the doctrine that an insured may not profit from its own wrongdoing relates to intentional tortious or criminal acts. See K & T Enters., 97 F.3d at 178 (finding public policy precluded recovery for losses sustained due to an insured’s arson); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Harrington, 212 Mich.App. 682, 538 N.W.2d 106, 109-10 (1995) (finding a person who shot his neighbor’s guest was not entitled to coverage under his homeowners’ insurance policy); United Gratiot Furniture Mart, Inc. v. Mich. Basic Prop. Ins. Ass’n, 159 Mich.App. 94, 406 N.W.2d 239, 242 (1987) (<HOLDING>). As the district court noted, Federal has not
holding that the trustee could not bring a claim against sole shareholders of bankrupt corporation where shareholders had not looted or otherwise injured the corporation holding that a corporation exists as an entity apart from its shareholders even where the corporation has but one shareholder the general proposition of corporate identity apart from its shareholders leads us to conclude in accordance with decisions from other jurisdictions that the attorneys client is the corporation and not the shareholders holding that parent corporation could not recover for its lost profits incurred after subsidiary suffered a fire even though both were listed as named insured on the business interruption insurance policy holding an insured corporation could not recover for a fire loss caused by its controlling shareholders arson holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable