Jackson County Circuit Court; File No. 18-016007NZ; Unpublished
Judge Gordon W. Britten; Written Opinion
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Serious Impairment of Body Function Definition (Pre-Cassidy Era – 1973-1982) [§3135(1)]
Statute of Limitations [§3135]
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Fraud/Misrepresentation
CASE SUMMARY:
In a written Opinion, Judge Britten held that a person injured in an automobile accident could maintain an action for fraud against the liability insurer where a claims agent of the liability insurer told the injured person that she could recover for noneconomic losses in tort only if she had sustained "permanent injuries." The claims agent told plaintiff that because her fractures had healed, she was not entitled to maintain a tort action. Based on those misrepresentations, the plaintiff took no action until after the expiration of the statute of limitations. When she discovered the misrepresentation, she filed an action for fraud directly against the liability insurance company.
In denying defendant's motion for accelerated judgment, Judge Britten rejected the argument that the misrepresentation involved in this case was purely a misrepresentation of law. Judge Britten held that the statements include a misrepresentation of fact as well. This is so because the claims agents represented that the no-fault law required "permanent injuries" for recovery of noneconomic losses when the law actually requires "serious impairment of body function." Judge Britten held, "This is an allegation of a misrepresentation of fact, not of law, in that the effected wording of the statute was incorrectly stated by the agent. This is distinguished from the alleged misrepresentation by the agent that the plaintiff could not collect because her injuries had healed; such would be a misrepresentation as to a matter of law. (See Restatement, Second, Torts, §525, Comment d)."
