Michigan Court of Appeals; Docket #311600; Unpublished
Judges Wilder, Fort Hood, and Servitto; Unanimous; Per Curiam;
Official Michigan Reporter Citation: Not applicable; Link to Opinion 
STATUTORY INDEXING:
Not applicable
TOPICAL INDEXING:
Insurance Agents (Duty to Insured)
Uninsured Motorist Coverage In General
CASE SUMMARY:
In this unanimous unpublished per curiam Opinion, the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of defendants holding that plaintiff’s breach of contract claim, professional negligence, and fraud against an agent for failing to provide requested coverage for uninsured motorist benefits was barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
The Court of Appeals held that the statutory period for breach of contract actions, including insurance contracts, is six years, pursuant to MCL 600.5807(8), and that the plaintiff’s lawsuit filed in 2006 was barred because it was filed more than six years after the breach of contract claim accrued.
Plaintiff alleged that when she insured her vehicle with the defendant agency and State Farm, she requested “full coverage” which she believed would have included uninsured motorist coverage. Uninsured motorist coverage was not provided under the policy, which plaintiff first discovered after her motor vehicle accident in 2004.
The trial court determined that the breach of contract claim accrued at the time that the insurance contract was issued in 2003 when the uninsured motorist coverage was purportedly requested. Plaintiff contended that the accrual of the breach of contract occurred following the accident in October 2004.
In affirming the trial court ruling, the Court of Appeals, citing cases interpreting the statute of limitations, held that a breach of contract claim accrues “at the time the wrong upon which the claim is based was done regardless of the time when the damage results.” In the instant case, the Court of Appeals held that the alleged wrong occurred at the time the contract was executed on December 5, 2003, not when the motor vehicle accident occurred.
In addition to dismissal of the contract claim based upon the statute of limitations, the Court of Appeals also dismissed plaintiff’s claims of fraud based upon the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff’s allegations were “based upon pure speculation.” Plaintiff’s allegation that documents were fraudulently destroyed or concealed were unsupportable. Because the fraud claims could not be established absent speculation, that claim was also dismissed.
