insurance claim in Michigan

2021A statement is material if it is reasonably relevant to the insurer’s investigation of a claim. [Bahri v IDS Property Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420, 424-425 ; 864 NW2d 609 (2014) (citation omitted).] -2- “Rescission is justified without regard to the intentional nature of the misrepresentation, as long as it is relied upon by the insurer.

2021A statement is material if it is reasonably relevant to the insurer’s investigation of a claim. [Bahri v IDS Property Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420, 424-425 ; 864 NW2d 609 (2014) (citation omitted).] -2- “Rescission is justified without regard to the intentional nature of the misrepresentation, as long as it is relied upon by the insurer.

2018See Gallup, 191 Mich App at 183-184 ; Reynolds, 123 Mich App at 490 - 491 (An insurance claim is precluded by the failure to file a written proof of loss within 60 days when required by standard policy language.).

2018See Gallup, 191 Mich App at 183-184 ; Reynolds, 123 Mich App at 490 - 491 (An insurance claim is precluded by the failure to file a written proof of loss within 60 days when required by standard policy language.).

1989Awarding plaintiff only the cost of repair or the decrease in market value fails to recognize that he has lost the use of the item during the time reasonably needed to repair or to replace it. [22 Am Jur 2d, Damages, § 443, p 525.] In Wendt v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 156 Mich App 19, 25-26 ; 401 NW2d 375 (1986), this Court held that the trial court erred in striking the plaintiff's tort claim for loss of use of a vehicle and loss of profits resulting therefrom when the defendant failed to timely settle an insurance claim.

1989Awarding plaintiff only the cost of repair or the decrease in market value fails to recognize that he has lost the use of the item during the time reasonably needed to repair or to replace it. [22 Am Jur 2d, Damages, § 443, p 525.] In Wendt v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 156 Mich App 19, 25-26 ; 401 NW2d 375 (1986), this Court held that the trial court erred in striking the plaintiff's tort claim for loss of use of a vehicle and loss of profits resulting therefrom when the defendant failed to timely settle an insurance claim.

2021“As a general rule, settlement agreements are final and cannot be modified.” Clark v Al- Amin, 309 Mich App 387, 395 ; 872 NW2d 730 (2015) (cleaned up).

2021“As a general rule, settlement agreements are final and cannot be modified.” Clark v Al- Amin, 309 Mich App 387, 395 ; 872 NW2d 730 (2015) (cleaned up).

2020That is, drivers accidentally pressed the gas pedal rather than the brake.” Jones v Ford Motor Co, 204 Fed Appx 280, 283 (CA 4, 2006), citing Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin, An Examination of Sudden Acceleration 1 (1989). -11- Gividen v Bristol West Ins Co, 305 Mich App 639, 646-647 ; 854 NW2d 200 (2014).

2020Id. at 157-158 .

2019Chastain v Gen Motors Corp, 254 Mich App 576, 590 ; 657 NW2d 804 (2002).

2019Chastain v Gen Motors Corp, 254 Mich App 576, 590 ; 657 NW2d 804 (2002).

2019Abela v General Motors Corp, 469 Mich 603, 607 ; 677 NW2d 325 (2004). -6- immediately clear whether plaintiffs’ malpractice claims would affect all of the defendants, a conclusion supported by O’Dowd’s testimony.

2019Abela v General Motors Corp, 469 Mich 603, 607 ; 677 NW2d 325 (2004). -6- immediately clear whether plaintiffs’ malpractice claims would affect all of the defendants, a conclusion supported by O’Dowd’s testimony.

2017It later vacated its November 2015 order in part and reinstated Toder’s first-party no-fault claim. -6- the insured of all the defenses it intends to rely upon, and its failure to do so is, in legal effect, a waiver, and estops it from maintaining any defenses to an action on the policy other than those of which it has thus given notice. [Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich, 234 Mich 119, 122-123 ; 208 NW 145 (1926).] See also Castner v Farmers’ Mut Fire Ins Co, 50 Mich 273 ; 15 NW 452 (1883).

2017It later vacated its November 2015 order in part and reinstated Toder’s first-party no-fault claim. -6- the insured of all the defenses it intends to rely upon, and its failure to do so is, in legal effect, a waiver, and estops it from maintaining any defenses to an action on the policy other than those of which it has thus given notice. [Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich, 234 Mich 119, 122-123 ; 208 NW 145 (1926).] See also Castner v Farmers’ Mut Fire Ins Co, 50 Mich 273 ; 15 NW 452 (1883).

2017It later vacated its November 2015 order in part and reinstated Toder’s first-party no-fault claim. -6- the insured of all the defenses it intends to rely upon, and its failure to do so is, in legal effect, a waiver, and estops it from maintaining any defenses to an action on the policy other than those of which it has thus given notice. [Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich, 234 Mich 119, 122-123 ; 208 NW 145 (1926).] See also Castner v Farmers’ Mut Fire Ins Co, 50 Mich 273 ; 15 NW 452 (1883).

2017It later vacated its November 2015 order in part and reinstated Toder’s first-party no-fault claim. -6- the insured of all the defenses it intends to rely upon, and its failure to do so is, in legal effect, a waiver, and estops it from maintaining any defenses to an action on the policy other than those of which it has thus given notice. [Smith v Grange Mut Fire Ins Co of Mich, 234 Mich 119, 122-123 ; 208 NW 145 (1926).] See also Castner v Farmers’ Mut Fire Ins Co, 50 Mich 273 ; 15 NW 452 (1883).

2016Crossley v Allstate Ins Co, 155 Mich App 694, 697 ; 400 NW2d 625 (1986); Safie Enterprises, Inc v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 146 Mich App 483, 494 ; 381 NW2d 747 (1985).

2016Crossley v Allstate Ins Co, 155 Mich App 694, 697 ; 400 NW2d 625 (1986); Safie Enterprises, Inc v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 146 Mich App 483, 494 ; 381 NW2d 747 (1985).

2016However, no private cause of action may be brought under the UTPA; rather, plaintiffs who believe the UTPA has been violated may complain to the Insurance 3 See, e.g., Hearn v Rickenbacker, 428 Mich 32, 37 ; 400 NW2d 90 (1987) (breach of an insurer’s duty to act in good faith in the handling and payment of claims is not a tort recognized in Michigan); Casey v Auto Owners Ins Co, 273 Mich App 388, 401-402 ; 729 NW2d 277 (2006) (“An alleged bad-faith breach of an insurance contract does not state an independent tort claim.”); Runions v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 197 Mich App 105, 109-110 ; 495 NW2d 166

2016However, no private cause of action may be brought under the UTPA; rather, plaintiffs who believe the UTPA has been violated may complain to the Insurance 3 See, e.g., Hearn v Rickenbacker, 428 Mich 32, 37 ; 400 NW2d 90 (1987) (breach of an insurer’s duty to act in good faith in the handling and payment of claims is not a tort recognized in Michigan); Casey v Auto Owners Ins Co, 273 Mich App 388, 401-402 ; 729 NW2d 277 (2006) (“An alleged bad-faith breach of an insurance contract does not state an independent tort claim.”); Runions v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 197 Mich App 105, 109-110 ; 495 NW2d 166

2016Crossley v Allstate Ins Co, 155 Mich App 694, 697 ; 400 NW2d 625 (1986); Safie Enterprises, Inc v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 146 Mich App 483, 494 ; 381 NW2d 747 (1985).

2016Crossley v Allstate Ins Co, 155 Mich App 694, 697 ; 400 NW2d 625 (1986); Safie Enterprises, Inc v Nationwide Mut Fire Ins Co, 146 Mich App 483, 494 ; 381 NW2d 747 (1985).

2007Were we not bound to follow this Court’s published opinion in Arco Industries Corp v American Motorist Ins Co, 233 Mich App 143 ; 594 NW2d 74 (1998), aff'd 462 Mich 896 (2000), we would find that the plain language of MCL 500.2006(4) entitles a first-party insured to 12 percent interest on claims not timely paid after satisfactory proof of loss was received by the insurer, even if the claim is reasonably in dispute.

2007Were we not bound to follow this Court’s published opinion in Arco Industries Corp v American Motorist Ins Co, 233 Mich App 143 ; 594 NW2d 74 (1998), aff'd 462 Mich 896 (2000), we would find that the plain language of MCL 500.2006(4) entitles a first-party insured to 12 percent interest on claims not timely paid after satisfactory proof of loss was received by the insurer, even if the claim is reasonably in dispute.

2007However, whether an insurance claim is reasonably in dispute is a question of fact, see id. at 477-478 , *564 which this Court reviews for clear error, MCR 2.613(C).

2006In Marketos v American Employers Ins Co, 240 Mich App 684, 686 ; 612 NW2d 848 (2000), rev’d in part on other grounds 465 Mich 407 (2001), the insurer denied, in its entirety, an insurance claim that arose out of a fire, arguing that the fire was an arson, which fire was alleged to have been set by the insured or at the insured’s direction.

2006In Marketos v American Employers Ins Co, 240 Mich App 684, 686 ; 612 NW2d 848 (2000), rev’d in part on other grounds 465 Mich 407 (2001), the insurer denied, in its entirety, an insurance claim that arose out of a fire, arguing that the fire was an arson, which fire was alleged to have been set by the insured or at the insured’s direction.

2006In Marketos v American Employers Ins Co, 240 Mich App 684, 686 ; 612 NW2d 848 (2000), rev’d in part on other grounds 465 Mich 407 (2001), the insurer denied, in its entirety, an insurance claim that arose out of a fire, arguing that the fire was an arson, which fire was alleged to have been set by the insured or at the insured’s direction.

2006Plaintiff argues that this Court should adhere to the Michigan Supreme Court’s reasoning in Yaldo v North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich 341 ; 578 NW2d 274 (1998).

2006Plaintiff argues that this Court should adhere to the Michigan Supreme Court’s reasoning in Yaldo v North Pointe Ins Co, 457 Mich 341 ; 578 NW2d 274 (1998).

2003As the trial court noted, defendants’ argument poses the classic “but for” argument of causation, which in this context simply extends to further remote causes, i.e., but for someone building the home, plaintiffs would not have suffered a loss. “[T]he adoption of a comparative negligence doctrine does not act to create negligence where none existed before.” Jones, supra at 437 .

2001The Stevenson Court, id., also held that subsection 3135(2)(c) does not violate due process, stating “[subsection 3135(2)(c)] is reasonably related to the legislative objectives of promoting fairness within the no-fault insurance system, reducing or restraining insurance premiums, and providing an incentive to comply with the insurance requirement of the no-fault act.” Plaintiff claims that she was innocently uninsured given that her ex-husband told her the car at issue was, in fact, insured.

2000For example, Tom Thomas Organization, Inc v Reliance Ins Co, 396 Mich 588, 591 ; 242 NW2d 396 (1976), treated a contractual one-year limitation in an insurance policy as tolled from the date of the insurance claim until the insurer formally denied liability.

2000For example, Tom Thomas Organization, Inc v Reliance Ins Co, 396 Mich 588, 591 ; 242 NW2d 396 (1976), treated a contractual one-year limitation in an insurance policy as tolled from the date of the insurance claim until the insurer formally denied liability.

1997In Atlanta Int’l, supra at 520, n 8, we observed that “the unique tripartite insurance context presents an analytically different public policy” from that which controlled our decision in Friedman, supra. Indeed, the focus of the Court’s attention in that case was on “vindicating [the] public policy rationale that undergirds the attorney-client relationship in the insurance defense context.” Atlanta Int’l at 520.