Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket # 323673; Unpublished
Judges Stephens, Hoekstra, and Servitto; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Fraud/Misrepresentation
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that defendant insurer’s motion for summary disposition was properly denied, because it failed to meet its burden of bringing forth evidence to show that any alleged misrepresentation made by plaintiff was “material.”
Plaintiff in this case was driving a vehicle owned and registered to her son-in-law, Philip Parham, when she sustained injuries in an accident. Plaintiff lived with Philip and her daughter, Melissa, at the time of the accident, and sought PIP benefits under their policy with defendant, Michigan Property & Casualty Guaranty Association. Defendant denied plaintiff’s claim for benefits, alleging that Philip had misrepresented on the insurance application that there were no additional licensed drivers in the household or additional drivers of his vehicles. Plaintiff then filed this action seeking coverage. Defendant moved for summary disposition, arguing the insurance application contained material misrepresentations that rendered the policy void ab initio. The trial court denied defendant’s motion.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, finding that a genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Philip had made material misrepresentations on the insurance application. In so holding, the court said:
“In this case, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition because defendant failed to satisfy its initial burden of bringing forth evidence to establish that any misrepresentation by Philip was ‘material.’ That is, defendant offers no evidence to establish that knowledge of plaintiff’s presence in the home would have led defendant to reject Philip’s application for insurance or to charge a higher premium for the policy. … In the absence of such evidence, defendant has failed to support its position that ‘material’ misrepresentations rendered the policy voidable ab initio and the trial court thus properly concluded that a material question of fact remained. … In sum, the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10).”
