JOHN MINK V LEADER INSURANCE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JOHN MINK and ANITA MINK,
UNPUBLISHED
September 20, 2002
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
No. 233256
Wayne Circuit Court
LC No. 00-001647-NF
LEADER INSURANCE and FIRST
AFFORDABLE INSURANCE,
Defendants-Appellees.
Before: Cooper, P.J., and Hoekstra and Markey, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
Plaintiffs appeal as of right the trial court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of
defendants in this action for breach of contract and silent fraud. We affirm.
In February 1999, plaintiffs purchased an automobile insurance policy from Leader
Insurance through First Affordable Insurance (FAI) agency. On the application, plaintiff John
Mink failed to disclose that their teenaged son,1 who was over fourteen years old and had a
driving permit, resided in plaintiffs’ household.2 According to plaintiffs, days later, when they
brought in one of their vehicles for inspection, plaintiff Anita Mink inquired of a “lady” that was
conducting the inspection for FAI whether plaintiffs’ teenaged son would be covered while
driving their vehicles, and was told by the “lady” that he would be covered. In the fall of 1999,
plaintiffs purchased vehicles, one of which was a 2000 Ford Explorer, to replace the vehicles that
were insured pursuant to the inaccurate application for automobile insurance that plaintiffs made
in February. In November 1999, plaintiffs’ teenaged son totaled plaintiffs’ 2000 Ford Explorer
in a one-car accident. Leader Insurance denied coverage because plaintiffs failed to disclose the
son on the insurance application. In an amended complaint, plaintiffs alleged breach of contract
against Leader Insurance and misrepresentation or silent fraud against FAI.
Initially, plaintiffs appear to argue that the “lady” was an agent of both defendants and
had the duty to properly advise plaintiffs concerning the scope of coverage, but failed in that
1
The teenager involved in the accident is Anita Mink’s son and John Mink’s stepson.
2
The application required that the applicant “[l]ist all residents of household 14 or older
(licensed or not).”
-1-
duty.3 Relying on Harts v Farmers Ins Exchange, 461 Mich 1; 597 NW2d 47 (1999), plaintiffs
claim that they have stated a valid cause of action because plaintiff Anita Mink made an inquiry
and the agent gave inaccurate advice. However, the Harts case deals with duty with respect to a
claim of negligence against an insurance agent for the insurer, id. at 12, but here, plaintiffs filed a
breach of contract claim against Leader Insurance and a fraud claim against FAI, an independent
insurance agency. Plaintiffs’ argument is illogical, at times incomprehensible, and reliance on
Harts is inapposite. We find no merit in plaintiff’s first argument on appeal.
Plaintiffs also argue that their contract claim should not have been dismissed on the basis
of the failure to include plaintiffs’ son on the insurance application as a member of their
household. According to plaintiffs, their representations were not “material misrepresentations”
of fact and recovery is not barred, especially in light of the conversations between plaintiffs and
FAI and the testimony of a Leader Insurance claims advisor that frequently Leader Insurance
does not cancel the policy under similar circumstances. We deem this issue abandoned on
appeal because plaintiffs cite no law in support of their argument and present only cursory
consideration. Prince v MacDonald, 237 Mich App 186, 197; 602 NW2d 834 (1999) (“[W]here
a party fails to cite any supporting legal authority for its position, the issue is deemed
abandoned.”); Head v Phillips Camper Sales & Rental, Inc, 234 Mich App 94, 116; 593 NW2d
595 (1999) (“This Court will not search for authority to sustain or reject a party's position.”); In
re Webb H Coe Marital & Residuary Trusts, 233 Mich App 525, 537; 593 NW2d 190 (1999)
(“We need not address an issue that is given only cursory consideration.”). Nevertheless, we
find plaintiffs’ claim in this regard without merit because the application that John Mink signed
contains language that reserves to Leader Insurance the right, in their sole discretion, to charge
an increased premium or cancel the policy in the event that full disclosure is not made on the
application.
Finally, plaintiffs argue that they presented evidence to demonstrate the required proofs
of silent fraud. Again, plaintiffs’ briefing is inadequate. This issue is not raised in the statement
of questions presented, and thus is not properly before us. Marx v Dep't of Commerce, 220 Mich
App 66, 81; 558 NW2d 460 (1996); Hammack v Lutheran Social Services of Michigan, 211
Mich App 1, 7; 535 NW2d 215 (1995). Nonetheless, in our opinion, the circumstances presented
in this case cannot support a claim of fraud. See M&D, Inc v W B McConkey, 231 Mich App 22;
585 NW2d 33 (1998). Plaintiffs’ inquiry about coverage of their son was made while plaintiffs
were present at the agency for the purpose of having a vehicle inspected. Plaintiffs claim that, in
this context, FAI’s employee’s response constitutes fraud because the advice that the son was
covered was inaccurate. However, the circumstances establish, at most, a combination of factors
that resulted in erroneous advice being given to plaintiffs, and we believe that the factor most
responsible for the bad advice was plaintiffs’ own failure to properly complete the application for
insurance.
3
Although plaintiffs begin their legal argument with a statement that FAI was acting as Leader
Insurance’s agent and that FAI’s representations are binding on Leader Insurance, that argument
does not parallel the question presented, nor does the remainder of their written argument under
that heading support that proposition. However, we note that an independent insurance agency’s
duty runs to the insured, not the insurer. Mate v Wolverine Mut Ins Co, 233 Mich App 14, 20;
592 NW2d 379 (1998).
-2-
Affirmed.
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
/s/ Joel P. Hoekstra
/s/ Jane E. Markey
-3-
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.
