Burton v Metropolitan Property and Casualty Ins Co; (COA-UNP, 6/18/1999; RB #2068)

Print

Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 208265; Unpublished   
Judges Neff, Hood, and Murphy; Unanimous; Per Curiam   
Official Michigan Reporter Citation:  Not Applicable; Link to Opinion alt   


STATUTORY INDEXING:   
Not Applicable

TOPICAL INDEXING:   
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies  


CASE SUMMARY:   
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that a no-fault insurance company was entitled to rescind a policy of insurance where a material misrepresentation is made in the application for insurance and the insurer relies upon the misrepresentation. The court held that rescission is allowed even where the misrepresentation was innocent.   

In this case, plaintiff signed an application for no-fault insurance coverage on his automobile which contained misrepresentations of fact with respect to plaintiff’s driving record and whether he had continuously maintained no-fault insurance coverage for the six (6) month period preceding signing of the application for insurance. Plaintiff’s vehicle was vandalized and he made claim for miscellaneous items of personal property stolen.   

Metropolitan determined that plaintiff had misrepresented his driving record by failing to indicate that he had been convicted of two (2) speeding violations, driving while his license was suspended, driving while his license was invalid, and failing to produce proof of insurance during the previous five (5) year period. In addition, plaintiff’s no-fault insurance had been canceled almost six (6) months before he signed the application.   

The Court of Appeals held that where Metropolitan has produced an affidavit indicating that plaintiff would have been ineligible for automobile insurance had the true facts been represented, the misrepresentations are material and Metropolitan was entitled to rescind the contract.   

The court further held that rescission is available to the insurer, even if the misrepresentation was innocent, if the insurer relies upon the misrepresentation. Lash v Allstate Insurance Company, 210 Mich App 98 (1995).