JAMIE LYNN KIENITZ V FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
JAMIE LYNN KIENITZ,
UNPUBLISHED
December 20, 2002
Plaintiff-Appellant,
and
PAUL EDWARD KIENITZ and CHRISTOPHER
MICHAEL BURGDORF,
Plaintiffs,
v
RICHARD KRAE DAVIDSON and DEBORAH
ANN ROBERTS,
No. 231425
Tuscola Circuit Court
LC No. 98-016777-NI
Defendants-Appellees.
JAMIE LYNN KIENTIZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
V
No. 231461
Tuscola Circuit Court
LC No. 00-018612-NF
FARMERS INSURANCE EXCHANGE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Before: Fitzgerald, P.J., and Holbrook, Jr., and Griffin, JJ.
GRIFFIN, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent.
In granting summary disposition in favor of defendants in Docket No. 231425, the
Honorable Carl L. Horn ruled:
-1-
The Court: . . . I’ll adopt the last paragraph of Mr. Diesel’s brief on page
five. I’m going to read it into the record.
“This case is actually rather simple. The policy that Jamie Lynn Kienitz
had with Farmers Insurance Exchange expired on January 29th, 1998. Jamie
Lynn Kienitz did not renew the policy. Whether her failure to renew it was based
on her failures, her understanding that somebody should have sent her something,
or some other explanation is irrelevant. The simple fact of the matter is Michigan
law recognizes that at the time her policy expires she was uninsured. On
February 28th, 1998, she was uninsured. The law indicates she’s not entitled to
maintain this cause of action.”
So, I’m adopting that as my reason for my ruling, and that’s the finding of
the Court.
Mr. Fordyce (counsel for plaintiff): Your Honor, could I request
additional findings, fairly certain this case won’t end here.
I would like to know whether the Court has found that what happneed
[sic] was a non-renewal, or a cancellation of the policy?
The Court: I find it’s a non-renewal.
Based on the facts that plaintiff admits are not in dispute, the lower court correctly held
that a policy of automobile insurance was not in effect at the time of the accident because of nonrenewal.1 McCormic v Auto Club Ins Assn, 202 Mich App 233; 507 NW2d 741 (1993).
As acknowledged by the majority, plaintiff’s contract of insurance with defendant
Farmers Insurance Exchange expired by its own terms on January 29, 1998. While an offer was
made to renew the policy for a six-month term expiring on July 29, 1998, plaintiff never made a
policy premium payment for the renewal policy and thus failed to accept defendant’s offer to
renew. Id. Even if, as stated by the majority, “[t]here are some indications in the record that
could lead to the conclusion that the first renewal payment would have been due on February 28,
1998, i.e., the day of the accident,” it is undisputed that plaintiff failed to make a premium
payment on February 28, 1998, or at anytime.
Because the material facts are not in dispute, I respectfully dissent from the futile remand
for further proceedings. I would affirm.
/s/ Richard Allen Griffin
1
Subsequently, in Docket No. 231461, the Honorable Patrick R. Joslyn granted summary
disposition in favor of defendant on the basis of Judge Horn’s prior ruling of no coverage
because of non-renewal.
-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.
