analyzed claim in Michigan

2023“Michigan law recognizes a cause of action in tort for an insurance agent’s failure to procure requested insurance coverage . . . .” Holton v A+ Ins Assocs, Inc, 255 Mich App 318, 324 ; 661 NW2d 248 (2003). “[U]nder the common law, an insurance agent whose principal is the insurance company owes no duty to advise a potential insured about any coverage because the agent’s job consists merely of present[ing] the product of his principal and tak[ing] such orders as can be secured from those who want to purchase the coverage offered.” Zaremba Equipment, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 2

2023“Michigan law recognizes a cause of action in tort for an insurance agent’s failure to procure requested insurance coverage . . . .” Holton v A+ Ins Assocs, Inc, 255 Mich App 318, 324 ; 661 NW2d 248 (2003). “[U]nder the common law, an insurance agent whose principal is the insurance company owes no duty to advise a potential insured about any coverage because the agent’s job consists merely of present[ing] the product of his principal and tak[ing] such orders as can be secured from those who want to purchase the coverage offered.” Zaremba Equipment, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 2

2023“Michigan law recognizes a cause of action in tort for an insurance agent’s failure to procure requested insurance coverage . . . .” Holton v A+ Ins Assocs, Inc, 255 Mich App 318, 324 ; 661 NW2d 248 (2003). “[U]nder the common law, an insurance agent whose principal is the insurance company owes no duty to advise a potential insured about any coverage because the agent’s job consists merely of present[ing] the product of his principal and tak[ing] such orders as can be secured from those who want to purchase the coverage offered.” Zaremba Equipment, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 2

2023“Michigan law recognizes a cause of action in tort for an insurance agent’s failure to procure requested insurance coverage . . . .” Holton v A+ Ins Assocs, Inc, 255 Mich App 318, 324 ; 661 NW2d 248 (2003). “[U]nder the common law, an insurance agent whose principal is the insurance company owes no duty to advise a potential insured about any coverage because the agent’s job consists merely of present[ing] the product of his principal and tak[ing] such orders as can be secured from those who want to purchase the coverage offered.” Zaremba Equipment, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co, 280 Mich App 16, 2

2026The Court analyzed this claim under a four-prong test to discern whether the punishment was grossly disproportionate, considering the following: (1) the severity of the sentence relative to the gravity of the offense; (2) sentences imposed in the same jurisdiction for other offenses; (3) sentences imposed in other jurisdictions for the same offense; and (4) the goal of rehabilitation, which is a criterion specifically rooted in Michigan’s legal traditions. [Id. at ___; slip op at 33, citing People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15 , 34-35 n 17; 485 NW2d 866 (1992).] Because the defendant in Kardasz was a

2026The Court analyzed this claim under a four-prong test to discern whether the punishment was grossly disproportionate, considering the following: (1) the severity of the sentence relative to the gravity of the offense; (2) sentences imposed in the same jurisdiction for other offenses; (3) sentences imposed in other jurisdictions for the same offense; and (4) the goal of rehabilitation, which is a criterion specifically rooted in Michigan’s legal traditions. [Id. at ___; slip op at 33, citing People v Bullock, 440 Mich 15 , 34-35 n 17; 485 NW2d 866 (1992).] Because the defendant in Kardasz was a

2006Id. at 340-341 .

1998Justice Boyle found it unnecessary to reach the issue in Mateo, id. at 226 , 577 N.W.2d 422 , but has recently joined Justice Weaver and me in this view in People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 476 , 581 N.W.2d 229 (1998). [7] Justice Kelly signed Justice Cavanagh's concurrence/ dissent in Gearns , where Justice Cavanagh indicated agreement with the "highly probable" test. 457 Mich. at 222 , 577 N.W.2d 422 . [8] In Mateo , this Court analyzed the error using a level-of-assurance test that was less than the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and in Gearns , the "highly probable" test was us

1998Justice Boyle found it unnecessary to reach the issue in Mateo, id. at 226 , 577 N.W.2d 422 , but has recently joined Justice Weaver and me in this view in People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 476 , 581 N.W.2d 229 (1998). [7] Justice Kelly signed Justice Cavanagh's concurrence/ dissent in Gearns , where Justice Cavanagh indicated agreement with the "highly probable" test. 457 Mich. at 222 , 577 N.W.2d 422 . [8] In Mateo , this Court analyzed the error using a level-of-assurance test that was less than the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and in Gearns , the "highly probable" test was us

1998Justice Boyle found it unnecessary to reach the issue in Mateo, id. at 226 , 577 N.W.2d 422 , but has recently joined Justice Weaver and me in this view in People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 476 , 581 N.W.2d 229 (1998). [7] Justice Kelly signed Justice Cavanagh's concurrence/ dissent in Gearns , where Justice Cavanagh indicated agreement with the "highly probable" test. 457 Mich. at 222 , 577 N.W.2d 422 . [8] In Mateo , this Court analyzed the error using a level-of-assurance test that was less than the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and in Gearns , the "highly probable" test was us

1998Justice Boyle found it unnecessary to reach the issue in Mateo, id. at 226 , 577 N.W.2d 422 , but has recently joined Justice Weaver and me in this view in People v. Crawford, 458 Mich. 476 , 581 N.W.2d 229 (1998). [7] Justice Kelly signed Justice Cavanagh's concurrence/ dissent in Gearns , where Justice Cavanagh indicated agreement with the "highly probable" test. 457 Mich. at 222 , 577 N.W.2d 422 . [8] In Mateo , this Court analyzed the error using a level-of-assurance test that was less than the "harmless beyond a reasonable doubt" standard, and in Gearns , the "highly probable" test was us