Lake States Ins. Co. v. Wilson
| Decision Date | 21 August 1998 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 200038 |
| Parties | LAKE STATES INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. June WILSON and Rayne Wilson, Defendants-Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Smith, Haughey, Rice & Roegge (by Jon D. Vande Ploeg), Grand Rapids, for plaintiff.
Thompson & O'Neil, P.C. by Daniel P. O'Neil, Traverse City, for defendants.
Before DOCTOROFF, P.J., and FITZGERALD and TALBOT, JJ.
Plaintiff, Lake States Insurance Company, appeals as of right the order denying its motion for summary disposition and granting defendants' cross-motion for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) in this action in which Lake States sought to reform a no-fault automobile insurance policy to provide coordinated personal injury protection (PIP) coverage for injuries suffered by defendant Rayne Wilson in an automobile accident. The present controversy arises from Lake States' initial payment of PIP benefits and its subsequent denial of PIP benefits, which was based on June Wilson's misrepresentation on the application for insurance. We reverse.
In June 1994, June Wilson applied for no-fault automobile insurance with Lake States Insurance Company through the Larkin Insurance Group (Larkin). On page one of the Lake States application, June Wilson was the only person listed in a block labeled "Resident and Driver Information." This information was incorrect, because there were five persons living in the Wilson household, including Donna Wilson and her daughter, defendant Rayne Wilson. On page two of the application, above the signature block for the policyholder, was a statement that read in pertinent part: "Applicant statement: I have read the above application and I declare to the best of my knowledge and belief all of the foregoing statements are true." June Wilson testified in her deposition that a Larkin representative typed the application and that she signed the application without reading it.
On June 15, 1994, Lake States sent a written request to Larkin for the name, date of birth, and driver's license number for all persons in the Wilson household. The request asked that the information be provided by June 29, 1994. On June 16, 1994, Lakes States issued a noncoordinated no-fault policy for June Wilson. On June 25, 1994, Larkin responded to Lake States' request by noting "none" on the letter sent by Lake States.
On July 24, 1994, Rayne Wilson was a passenger in a vehicle driven by her cousin, Twyla Shomin. The vehicle, which was insured by another insurance company, was involved in a single-car accident, and Rayne Wilson was seriously injured. At the time of the accident, Rayne Wilson was insured under a health policy issued by Blue Cross/Blue Shield Health Care.
Rayne Wilson applied for PIP benefits through Lake States. For a sixteen-month period, Lake States paid benefits, including $18,000 for expenses that were paid by Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Lake States thereafter denied further payments for medical expenses on the ground that June Wilson did not disclose that Donna Wilson, who was previously convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol in 1992, was residing in the household. Lake States asserted that Donna Wilson was ineligible for motor vehicle insurance and, that therefore, Lake States would not have written the policy had it known that Donna Wilson resided in the household. 1 Lake States filed the present action seeking to reform the policy to coordinate no-fault coverage with health coverage, so as to thereby relieve Lake States of any obligation to pay duplicative medical benefits to Rayne Wilson.
Competing motions for summary disposition were filed. The trial court, concluding that public policy required that the risk of loss resulting from an insured's misrepresentation fall on the insurer and not on an innocent third party, denied Lake States' motion for summary disposition and granted summary disposition in favor of defendants. This appeal followed.
It is the well-settled law of this state that where an insured makes a material misrepresentation in the application for insurance, including no-fault insurance, the insurer is entitled to rescind the policy and declare it void ab initio. Lash v. Allstate Ins. Co., 210 Mich.App. 98, 101, 532 N.W.2d 869 (1995). Rescission is justified without regard to the intentional nature of the misrepresentation, as long as it is relied upon by the insurer. Reliance may exist when the misrepresentation relates to the insurer's guidelines for determining eligibility for coverage. Id.
Nevertheless, there is an exception to this general rule. Once an innocent third party is injured in an accident in which coverage was in effect with respect to the relevant vehicle, the insurer is estopped from asserting fraud to rescind the insurance contract. MCL 257.520(f)(1); MSA 9.2220(f)(1); Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 209 Mich.App. 61, 64, 530 N.W.2d 485 (1995). However, an insurer is not precluded from rescinding the policy to void any "optional" 2 insurance coverage, M.C.L. § 257.520(g); MSA 9.2220(g), unless the fraud or misrepresentation could have been "ascertained easily" by the insurer. Farmers Ins. Exchange v. Anderson, 206 Mich.App. 214, 219, 520 N.W.2d 686 (1994).
Lake States contends that noncoordinated no-fault and health insurance is "optional" and therefore that the contract should be reformed to provide coordinated coverage. In other words, Lake States asserts that its liability for PIP benefits should be limited to medical expenses not paid by Blue Cross/Blue Shield.
In light of Farmers Ins. Exchange, we conclude that the trial court erred in holding that Lake States was equitably estopped from seeking reformation of the policy. Applying the rationale in Farmers Ins. Exchange, Lake States would be entitled to reformation of the policy if (1) there was a material...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. USA Underwriters
...or in addition to the [mandatory minimum] coverage specified for a motor vehicle liability policy.’ " Lake States Ins. Co. v. Wilson , 231 Mich. App. 327, 332 n. 2, 586 N.W.2d 113 (1998), quoting MCL 257.520(g) (alteration in original). The Legislature has made it clear that when an insurer......
-
Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co.
...281 Mich.App. 485, 489–492, 760 N.W.2d 293 (2008), overruled by Titan, 491 Mich. 547, 817 N.W.2d 562 ; Lake States Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 231 Mich.App. 327, 331–332, 586 N.W.2d 113 (1998) ; Anderson, 206 Mich.App. at 216–219, 520 N.W.2d 686. For instance, in Anderson, 206 Mich.App. at 217, 520......
-
Nationwide Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co. v. Brown
...for insurance ..., the insurer is entitled to rescind the policy and declare it void ab initio. " Lake States Ins. Co. v. Wilson , 231 Mich.App. 327, 331, 586 N.W.2d 113 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998). This is true whether or not the misrepresentation was intentional, so long as the insurer relied o......
-
Maurer v. Fremont Ins. Co.
...relates to the insurer’s guidelines for determining eligibility for coverage.’ " Id ., quoting Lake States Ins. Co. v. Wilson , 231 Mich. App. 327, 331, 586 N.W.2d 113 (1998). However, an insurer must assert any claim for rescission within six years after the claim accrues. MCL 600.5813. A ......
-
What is the Michigan Law on Misrepresentation in the Application for Property Insurance? Can a Wrong Answer About Taxes Void the Policy?
...for insurance[,] . . . the insurer is entitled to rescind the policy and declare it void ab initio.’ Lake States Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 586 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998)... A fact or representation in an application for insurance is material when communication of it would have resulted......
-
A Review of Property Insurance Law in Canada and the United States.
...See Northwestern Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Iannacchino, 950 F. Supp. 28 (D. Mass. 1997). Michigan Yes. See Lake States Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 586 N.W.2d 113, 231 Mich. App. 327 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998); Mina v. Gen. Star Indem. Co., 555 N.W.2d 1, 218 Mich. App. 678, (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) rev'd in par......
-
CHAPTER 5
...the intentional nature of the material misrepresentation,” as long as it is relied upon by the insurer. [Lakes State Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 586 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (emphasis added). The rationale for Michigan’s rule is obvious: the insurer, in making underwriting decisions an......
-
CHAPTER 1
...the intentional nature of the material misrepresentation,” as long as it is relied upon by the insurer. Lakes State Ins. Co. v. Wilson, 586 N.W.2d 113, 115 (Mich. Ct. App. 1998) (emphasis added). The rationale for Michigan’s rule is obvious: the insurer, in making underwriting decisions and......