Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 248294; Unpublished
Judges Griffin, Saad, and O’Connell; unanimous, per curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable, Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam opinion, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant, wherein the trial court had ruled, as a matter of law, that plaintiff’s claim for no-fault PIP benefits should be denied on the basis that the insurance policy issued to plaintiff was void ab initio, because plaintiff misrepresented she did not use the insured vehicle in her business and that she had private health insurance. In reversing summary disposition on this issue, the court stated:
“While we do not pass on the ultimate question, we agree that the trial court improperly resolved this factual question in defendant’s favor. In her deposition, plaintiff testified that she had been working on and off at Aon Consulting for approximately seven years. The insurance company argued that she was using her vehicle for business purposes while working for the consulting company, so this was a material misrepresentation in the application. However, plaintiff also asserts that she was not using her vehicle for business purposes when she filled out her insurance application. Plaintiff’s acknowledgment that she worked for Aon Consulting ‘on and off’ does not directly contradict her straightforward assertion that she was working from home when she filled out the application. This is not the kind of blatant contradiction upon which a trial court may base a finding that no material question of fact exists. Trial courts must carefully approach potential factual questions and should not lightly dismiss them as immaterial. . . . Plaintiff also argues that the trial court erred when it found that her misstatement regarding her health insurance coverage was a material misrepresentation that justified rescission. We agree. The question on the application asked, ‘Do you have primary medical coverage with a health insurance company?’ Plaintiff answered affirmatively, and now asserts that she honestly believed that she had such coverage. Defendant presented evidence that plaintiff’s health program, provided through Wayne County, was not, in the strictest sense, a health insurance company and did not provide primary coverage for motor vehicle accidents. . . . However, under the unique circumstances of this case, plaintiff raised a factual issue regarding whether defendant reasonably relied on its vague ‘yes or no’ question to obtain the information it claims was vital to this contract’s formation. Because plaintiff raised issues of fact, the trial court erred when it summarily disposed of plaintiff’s claims.”
