Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #311937; Unpublished
Judges Servitto, Sawyer, and Boonstra; 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In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of defendant Progressive, holding that the policy of insurance had been cancelled for non-payment on the day before plaintiff’s accident and, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to PIP benefits.
Progressive sent plaintiff a cancellation notice which indicated the policy would be cancelled on September 26, 2010 if the premium was not received or postmarked by that time. Prior to that date, plaintiff called defendant and spoke with an employee, requesting permission to pay the premium on September 27, the day after it was due, as plaintiff intended to borrow the funds from his church and would not be able to obtain the payment from the church until September 27. The employee of the insurance company agreed that the payment could be made on September 27, but if it was not received, the policy would cancel on the original date of September 26. Plaintiff was not able to obtain the check from his church because it was closed on September 27 and, therefore, was unable to make the agreed upon payment. Plaintiff was then involved in an accident that evening. Based upon non-payment, Progressive denied coverage for PIP benefits.
On appeal from the trial court grant of summary disposition in favor of Progressive, the Court of Appeals rejected arguments that Progressive was equitably estopped from cancelling the agreement. The court held that the cancellation letter clearly indicated that the policy would cancel on the 26th. Although the insurance employee allegedly represented that the policy would be continued if the payment was made on September 27, the payment was not made on the 27th and, therefore, the agreement was not enforceable and cancellation reverted to the 26th. The court held that equitable estoppel did not save the plaintiff’s claim to PIP benefits, because there was no act, representation, admission, or silence on the part of the employee of the insurance company that arguably may have induced the plaintiff to believe that the policy would remain in effect past September 26, even if payment was not made on September27.
The court also rejected the argument that there had been a mutual mistake or that the doctrine of impossibility applied.
Accordingly, the trial court determination that plaintiff’s policy of insurance was cancelled prior to the motor vehicle accident was affirmed.
