THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956
Act 218 of 1956
500.2005 Misrepresentations.
Sec. 2005.
An unfair method of competition and an unfair or deceptive act or practice in the business of insurance means the making, issuing, circulating, or causing to be made, issued, or circulated, an estimate, illustration, circular, statement, sales presentation, or comparison which by omission of a material fact or incorrect statement of a material fact does any of the following:
(a) Misrepresents the terms, benefits, advantages, or conditions of an insurance policy.
(b) Misrepresents the dividends or share of the surplus to be received on an insurance policy.
(c) Makes a false or misleading statement as to the dividends or share of surplus previously paid on an insurance policy.
(d) Makes a misleading statement or misrepresentation as to the financial condition of a person engaged in the business of insurance, or as to the legal reserve system upon which a life insurer operates.
(e) Uses a name or title of an insurance policy or class of insurance policies misrepresenting the true nature of that insurance policy or class of insurance policies. A policy approved by the commissioner shall be conclusively presumed not to misrepresent the true nature of that policy.
(f) Makes a misrepresentation for the purpose of inducing or tending to induce the lapse, forfeiture, exchange, conversion, or surrender of an insurance policy.
(g) Makes a misrepresentation for the purpose of effecting a pledge or assignment of or a loan against an insurance policy.
(h) Misrepresents an insurance policy as being a security. This subdivision shall not apply to an insurance policy which must be registered as a security pursuant to the law of this state or of the United States.
(i) Misrepresents the nature or extent of coverage afforded an insurance policy or annuity contract by the Michigan life and health insurance guaranty association or the property and casualty guaranty association.
History: 1956, Act 218, Eff. Jan. 1, 1957 ;-- Am. 1976, Act 273, Eff. Apr. 1, 1977 ;-- Am. 1989, Act 302, Imd. Eff. Jan. 3, 1990
PopularName Notes:
Act 218
Notes of Decisions
Negrete v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 927 F. Supp. 2d 870 (C.D. Cal. 2013).
“§ 40-2404 (prohibiting the use of any advertising that is misleading as to “the benefits, advantages, conditions or terms of any insurance policy”); Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2005 (prohibiting misrepresenting “the terms, benefits, advantages, or conditions of an insurance policy”);…”
Amerisure Mut. Ins. v. Carey Transp., Inc., 578 F. Supp. 2d 888 (W.D. Mich. 2008).
“noted that, if the exclusionary clause upon which Amerisure is attempting to rely is read and applied as broadly and literally as Amerisure would have this Court believe, this may be a violation of MCLA 500.”
Arrigo's Fleet Serv., Inc. v. Aetna Life & Cas. Co., 221 N.W.2d 206 (Mich. Ct. App. 1974).
“While not brought up by this case, we feel that the lack of complete explanation, leaving the implication of full coverage could be found to be against the spirit of MCLA 500.2005; MSA 24.12005. Cf. Davis, Pretrial Discovery of Insurance Coverage, 16 Wayne L Rev 1047, 1061…”
Biondo v. Life Ins. Co. of North Am., 116 F. Supp. 2d 872 (E.D. Mich. 2000).
“§ 500.2005, enumerates unlawful "unfair or deceptive acts, or practices in the business of insurance,” and includes "misrepre-sentfing] the terms, benefits, advantages and conditions of an insurance policy,” 500.”
Smart v. New Hampshire Ins., 384 N.W.2d 772 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
“” MCL 500.2005; MSA 24.12005. Plaintiffs alleged that New Hampshire violated the above provisions because it unfairly misrepresented the terms of the insurance policy.”
Harris v. Endurance Am. Ins. Co. (E.D. Mich. 2024).
· cites it 4× “B Next, in Count III of the First Amended Complaint, the Yott Estate claims that Endurance violated the provisions of Michigan Uniform Trade Practices Act (the “UTPA”) that prohibit a party from (1) “[m]isrepresent[ing] the terms, benefits, advantages, or conditions of an…”
Bartalino v. Citizens Ins. Co. of the Midwest (E.D. Mich. 2021).
· cites it 2× “First, Defendant argues that some of Plaintiff's claims are barred by the "one-year back" rule under Michigan law, and second, Defendant argues that Plaintiff's claim under the Michigan Uniform Trade Practice Act, Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2005 , ("UTPA") must fail because…”
Johnson Law, PLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co., LTD. (E.D. Mich. 2020).
“2006(1) and (4), payment of a claim is deemed to be untimely if it is not made within sixty days after the insurer receives satisfactory proof of the loss, and that under § 500.2005(3) if an insurer is not satisfied with the proof the insured submits with a claim, the insurer…”
Amy Jean Jo Sobesky v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“3102(1) states that “[a] nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle not registered in this state shall not operate or permit the motor vehicle or motorcycle to be operated in this state for an aggregate of more than 30 days in any calendar year” unless he…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2005(3) — 1 case
Johnson Law, PLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co., LTD. (E.D. Mich. 2020).
“2006(1) and (4), payment of a claim is deemed to be untimely if it is not made within sixty days after the insurer receives satisfactory proof of the loss, and that under § 500.2005(3) if an insurer is not satisfied with the proof the insured submits with a claim, the insurer…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.2005(a) — 1 case
Amy Jean Jo Sobesky v. Geico Gen. Ins. Co. (Mich. Ct. App. 2025).
“3102(1) states that “[a] nonresident owner or registrant of a motor vehicle or motorcycle not registered in this state shall not operate or permit the motor vehicle or motorcycle to be operated in this state for an aggregate of more than 30 days in any calendar year” unless he…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.