LOCAL 3126 NATL ASSN LTR V TIG INSUR CO
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
LOCAL 3126 of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
OF LETTER CARRIERS OF THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA and PAUL
ROZNOWSKI,
UNPUBLISHED
January 26, 2001
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v
JUDGE-McKEE INSURANCE AGENCY, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 198934
Oakland County Circuit Court
LC No. 95-507194-CK
ON SECOND REMAND
Before: Murphy, P.J., and Cavanagh and Gage, JJ.
PER CURIAM.
This matter reaches us for a third time after a December 5, 2000, order from the Michigan
Supreme Court reversing the April 18, 2000, judgment of the Court of Appeals and reinstating
the judgment of the Oakland Circuit Court “for the reasons stated in the dissenting Court of
Appeals opinion.” The Supreme Court then remanded the case to this Court for consideration of
other issues raised by the plaintiffs but not addressed by the Court of Appeals in its prior
opinions.
One of the remaining issues raised by the plaintiffs relate to a claim that the trial court
failed to address an alleged negligence claim and therefore summary disposition was improperly
granted. Plaintiffs’ complaint was couched in terms of a misrepresentation claim and a violation
of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. In response to defendant’s motion for summary
disposition and at the hearing on the motion for summary disposition, plaintiffs did not raise the
issue of negligence or indicate that it was an issue. Rather, as plaintiffs had done throughout,
plaintiffs focused their argument on the alleged misrepresentations of defendant and the duty to
defend. Since plaintiffs failed to raise this issue in their complaint and at the trial court, we will
not now review it here. Auto Club Ins Ass’n v Lozanis, 215 Mich App 415, 421; 546 NW2d 648
(1996).
Finally, plaintiffs argue that the trial court failed to address their claim under the
Michigan Consumer Protection Act, MCL 445.903; MSA 19.418(3), and therefore summary
disposition was improperly granted to defendant. Although not addressed by the trial court, in
view of our Supreme Court’s order of December 5, 2000, adopting the reasoning of Judge Gage’s
-1-
dissenting opinion, which concluded that no misrepresentation occurred, and if it had, there was
no reliance by plaintiffs, summary disposition on the statutory claim would have been proper as
well.
Accordingly, the decision of the trial court granting summary disposition to the defendant
is affirmed.
/s/ William B. Murphy
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Hilda R. Gage
-2-
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.
