Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket No. 185156; Unpublished
Judges Taylor, Markman, and Clulo; Unanimous; Per Curiam
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not Applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not Applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Fraud/Misrepresentation
Cancellation and Rescission of Insurance Policies
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous per curiam unpublished Opinion, the Court of Appeals held that American Fellowship Insurance Company had properly rescinded a no-fault insurance policy denying PIP benefits to defendant's injured son, where the insured had failed to disclose that her son was a licensed driver in her household.
The defendant owned three cars that were covered under an insurance policy issued by American Fellowship. In November 1991, American Fellowship renewed the insurance policy. The insured's son was subsequently involved in an accident while driving one of the vehicles and filed a claim for PIP benefits through defendant's policy from American Fellowship. American Fellowship denied coverage and sought to rescind the policy based upon defendant's failure to disclose that her son was a licensed resident of her household. The defendant filed a motion for summary disposition which was denied because of an existing factual issue, and subsequently at trial, the court ruled in favor of American Fellowship rescinding the insurance contract based upon its finding that defendant had made a material misrepresentation to American Fellowship regarding the residency of her son.
The basis of the rescission was American Fellowship's claim that the insured had failed to notify it that her son was a resident driver of her household. The Court of Appeals held that a material misrepresentation had been made in the application for no-fault insurance, and entitled American Fellowship to rescind the policy.
In this case, the issue concerned the question of the insured's son's domicile, which the Court of Appeals held to be an issue of fact to be resolved by the trial court. The Court of Appeals also rejected the insured's claim that she was not required to disclose that her son was a resident licensed driver, because his license had been previously suspended. The court held that the term "licensed driver" in an insurance policy is reasonably construed to include an individual in the possession of a driver's license which has been temporarily suspended.
The trial court's finding that defendant's son was a resident of defendant's household at the time she renewed the policy was determined not to be clearly erroneous. The judgment in favor of American Fellowship was therefore affirmed.
