Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 207022; Published
Judges Gribbs, Smolenski, and Gage; Unanimous; Opinion by Judge Smolenski
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 238 Mich App 602; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
Uninsured Motorist Benefits
Motor Vehicle Code (Financial Responsibility Act) (MCL 257.501, et seq.)
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous published Opinion by Judge Smolenski, the Court of Appeals held invalid and against public policy, a "general condition" contained in a no-fault insurance policy which purported to void the entire policy in the circumstance where the insured has intentionally concealed or misrepresented any material fact or circumstance relating to any claim made under the policy.
In this case, plaintiff Cohen was injured in an automobile accident in 1994, and filed a claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the policy. She submitted a wage loss verification form with an affidavit purporting to be signed by her employer, and which her employer denied signing. Auto Club rejected plaintiffs claim for uninsured motorist benefits under the provisions of its "general policy condition 20" which provides that the entire policy is void if the insured intentionally conceals or misrepresents facts relating to claims made under the policy.
The trial court ordered the matter to be arbitrated. On appeal, Auto Club contended that the trial court erred in ordering arbitration because the policy was void under general policy condition 20. The Court of Appeals held that general policy condition 20 was invalid and contrary to public policy and the provisions of MCLA 257.520(f)( 1), the Financial Responsibility Act provision that says "no statement made by the insured or on his behalf and no violation of such policy shall defeat or void said policy." Although the Court of Appeals acknowledged that an insurer may rescind a no-fault insurance policy and declare it void ab initio if the insured procures the policy through intentional misrepresentation of a material fact in the application for insurance and then seeks to collect no-fault benefits, here, the provisions of the Financial Responsibility Act preclude voiding of the entire policy based upon statements made by the insured in which the insured allegedly files fraudulent claims under a valid policy.
The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the trial court's decision in which it had ordered arbitration, finding that the court had no basis to submit the claim to arbitration. The matter was remanded for further proceedings.
