THOMAS BURTON V METROPOLITAN PROPERTY & CASUALTY INS
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
THOMAS BURTON,
UNPUBLISHED
June 18, 1999
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v
METROPOLITAN PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY and KENNETH
POWERS,
No. 208265
Jackson Circuit Court
LC No. 95-074501 CZ
Defendants-Appellees,
and
DENNIS ADRIAN,
Defendant.
Before: Neff, P.J., and Hood and Murphy, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order granting summary disposition in favor of defendants.
We affirm.
This action arises out of a dispute over an automobile insurance policy between plaintiff and
defendant Metropolitan Property and Casualty Insurance Company (Metropolitan). The application
signed by plaintiff contained misrepresentations of fact with respect to his driving record and as to
whether he continuously maintained no-fault insurance coverage for the six-month period preceding
plaintiff’s signing of the application for insurance. Plaintiff’s vehicle was allegedly vandalized and several
boxes of uninstalled stereo equipment, a compact disc player, approximately thirty compact discs and
other miscellaneous items were stolen from the vehicle. Upon investigating plaintiff’s claim,
Metropolitan discovered the misrepresentations, denied the claim, and rescinded the contract of
insurance. Plaintiff filed suit alleging several theories for recovery.
-1
Defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). The trial court
granted the summary disposition motion with respect to defendants Metropolitan and Kenneth Powers.
Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed defendant Dennis Adrian. This appeal followed.
On appeal, plaintiff argues that the misrepresentations of fact were not material but, even if they
were material, rescission of an insurance contract is not justified where the misrepresentations of fact
were innocent in nature.
A motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10) tests whether there is factual
support for a claim. Spiek v Dep’t of Transportation, 456 Mich 331, 337; 572 NW2d 201 (1998).
Summary disposition of all or part of a claim or defense may be granted when “[e]xcept as to the
amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to
judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.” MCR 2.116(C)(10). We review a trial court’s grant
or denial of summary disposition de novo, examining the record in the same manner as the trial court to
determine whether the movant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Morales v Auto-Owners
Ins, 458 Mich 288, 294; 582 NW2d 13 (1998).
Plaintiff first argues that the misrepresentations made in his application were not material.
Plaintiff signed the application for insurance indicating that he had not been convicted of a moving
violation or had his license suspended during the last five years and that he had continuously maintained
no-fault insurance for the past six months. Plaintiff, in fact, was convicted of two speeding violations,
driving while his license was suspended, driving while his license was invalid, and for failing to produce
proof of insurance during the previous five-year period. In addition and contrary to his representations,
plaintiff’s no-fault insurance was canceled almost six months before he signed the application.
In Keys v Pace, 358 Mich 74, 82; 99 NW2d 547 (1959), our Supreme Court, quoting 29 Am
Jur, Insurance, § 525, stated:
The generally accepted test for determining the materiality of a fact or matter as
to which a representation is made to the insurer by an applicant for insurance is to be
found in the answer to the question whether reasonably careful and intelligent
underwriters would have regarded the fact or matter, communicated at the time of
effecting the insurance, as substantially increasing the chances of loss insured against so
as to bring about a rejection of the risk or the charging of an increased premium.
Since the holding in Keys, however, the courts of this state have not focused on the question of whether
the insurer would have been entitled to charge an increased premium but for the misrepresentation.
Instead, the inquiry has been limited to whether the insurer would have rejected the application
altogether if the true facts had been represented. Zulcosky v Farm Bureau Life Ins Co of Michigan,
206 Mich App 95, 99; 520 NW2d 366 (1994). Defendants submitted the affidavit of Margaret
Bishop, an underwriter for Metropolitan, as part of their motion for summary disposition. Bishop
averred that based on his driving record, plaintiff was ineligible for automobile insurance through
Metropolitan. Plaintiff failed to offer any evidence supporting his claim that even with the
misrepresentations, he would have been eligible for insurance with Metropolitan. Therefore, as a matter
-2
of law, we find that the misrepresentations made by plaintiff on his application for insurance were
material.
-3
Plaintiff next argues that even if the misrepresentations were material, rescission of the contract
for insurance was not justified because the misrepresentations were innocent. Plaintiff alleges that
Metropolitan’s former employee, Dennis Adrian, incorrectly filled out plaintiff’s application for
insurance. Plaintiff contends that he informed Adrian of his complete driving history and that Adrian
failed to incorporate that history into plaintiff’s application. Plaintiff further alleges that his estranged wife
allowed their auto insurance to lapse and that he was not aware of that fact when he signed the
application. Even if we accept as true plaintiff’s assertion that the misrepresentations were innocent,
plaintiff cannot prevail.
It is well settled that a material misrepresentation made in an application for no-fault insurance
entitles the insurer to rescind the policy. Auto-Owners Ins Co v Johnson, 209 Mich App 61, 64; 530
NW2d 485 (1995). Moreover, in Lash v Allstate Ins Co, 210 Mich App 98, 103; 532 NW2d 869
(1995), this Court held that rescission is available to the insurer even if the misrepresentation was
innocent, if the insurer relies upon the misrepresentation.
In Lash, the defendant Allstate rescinded a no-fault insurance contract for material
misrepresentations made on the policy application as to the plaintiff’s driving record. The plaintiff
represented that he had no traffic violations within the last three years when in fact he had received a
citation for impaired driving. The plaintiff contended that his misrepresentation was merely a mistake
and that he honestly believed that his citation was issued more than three years before he applied to
defendant for insurance. In reversing the trial court’s decision denying the defendant’s motion for
summary disposition, we stated:
Rescission is justified in cases of innocent misrepresentation if a party relies
upon the misstatement, because otherwise the party responsible for the misstatement
would be unjustly enriched if he were not held accountable for his misrepresentation.
This is true, even as in this case, if it was a mutual mistake of fact. In this case, the belief
that plaintiff had no traffic citations related to a basic assumption of the parties upon
which the contract was made and materially affected the parties' performances. Allstate
would not have issued the policy had it known about plaintiff's citation because plaintiff
would have been ineligible under its guidelines. Plaintiff should not be unjustly enriched
at Allstate's expense because of his misrepresentation, even accepting that it was
innocent. Accordingly, rescission was appropriate and the trial court erred in denying
Allstate's motion for summary disposition. [Id., 103-104 (citations omitted).]
Here, Metropolitan produced record evidence that plaintiff would have been ineligible for
insurance based upon his actual driving record. Metropolitan was justified in rescinding plaintiff’s
insurance policy as a matter of law. Accordingly, the trial court did not err in granting defendants’
motion for summary disposition.
Affirmed.
-4
/s/ Janet T. Neff
/s/ Harold Hood
/s/ William B. Murphy
-5
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.