Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 208758; Published
Judges Kelly, Jansen, and White; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: 239 Mich App 443; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
General / Miscellaneous [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Not Applicable
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam published Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that there was a question of fact regarding whether the plaintiffs claims adjuster had incorrectly overpaid a property damage claim based upon a "mistake of fact" regarding the fact that the accident had occurred in Michigan, thus limiting property damage coverage to $500 under section 3135(3)(d). Therefore, the court reversed grant of summary disposition in favor of plaintiff and remanded the matter to the trial court for further proceedings.
This case arose from a motor vehicle accident in Michigan involving two semi-trucks. One of the semi-trucks was totaled with a loss of $52,000 claimed by its subrogee, Claimsco. A claim was submitted to Sentry Insurance, and after some negotiations, Sentry agreed to pay $46,800 for the property damage. Under Michigan law, property damage is limited to $500 under section 3135(3)(d). After the payment was made, Sentry commenced an action claiming a "mistake of fact" and unjust enrichment and seeking the return of the overpayment. The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of Sentry, and denied defendant's motion for summary disposition.
The Court of Appeals held there were sufficient facts to support the contention that there had been a "mistake of fact" by the claims adjuster for Sentry, in that he did not realize that this was a Michigan-based accident. A reasonable fact finder could conclude that the adjuster was acting under a mistake of fact regarding the location of the accident when he agreed to settle for an amount that was so much in excess of what defendant was entitled to. On the other hand, the conclusion that the adjuster had made a true mistake of fact is not compelled, as there was other evidence suggesting that he did have a copy of the police report, which would have indicated the fact that the accident had occurred in Michigan. The trier of fact could reject the adjuster's assertion that he did not understand that the accident occurred in Michigan. Therefore, summary disposition for either party was not appropriate, and the matter was remanded for further proceedings.
