Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 500 / Act 218 of 1956
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3220 (2026)

Cancellation; reasons.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

THE INSURANCE CODE OF 1956


Act 218 of 1956


500.3220 Cancellation; reasons.

Sec. 3220.

    Subject to the following provisions no insurer licensed to write automobile liability coverage, after a policy has been in effect 55 days or if the policy is a renewal, effective immediately, shall cancel a policy of automobile liability insurance except for any 1 or more of the following reasons:

    (a) That during the 55 days following the date of original issue thereof the risk is unacceptable to the insurer.

    (b) That the named insured or any other operator, either resident of the same household or who customarily operates an automobile insured under the policy has had his operator's license suspended during the policy period and the revocation or suspension has become final.

History: Add. 1966, Act 342, Eff. Nov. 1, 1966 ;-- Am. 1970, Act 161, Imd. Eff. Aug. 2, 1970

PopularName Notes:

Act 218
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1973–2024 · leading case: Titan Ins. Co. v. Hyten, 491 Mich. 547 (Mich. 2012).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Titan Ins. Co. v. Hyten, 491 Mich. 547 (Mich. 2012). · cites it 17× “, limits the ability of an insurer to avoid liability on the ground of fraud in obtaining a motor vehicle liability policy with respect to insurance required by the financial responsibility act.”
Titan Ins. v. Hyten, 805 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 16× “3220 prohibited an automobile liability insurer from cancelling coverage after a policy had remained in effect for 55 days, except for any one of 12 enumerated reasons.”
Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 891 N.W.2d 13 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 5× “This Court, in an effort to avoid the application of Keys, noted that our Legislature had amended various statutes since our Supreme Court issued Keys, including statutes regarding the cancellation of insurance policies, MCL 500.3220, and the motor vehicle accident claims act,…”
Ali Bazzi v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 919 N.W.2d 20 (Mich. 2018). · cites it 2× “For example, MCL 500.3220 -part of the no-fault act-"limits the ability **401 of a licensed insurer to 'cancel' automobile coverage after a policy has been in effect for at least 55 days.”
Cunningham v. Citizens Ins. Co. of Am., 350 N.W.2d 283 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 10× “We do not agree that any provision in the no-fault act, MCL 500.”
Shavers v. Attorney Gen., 267 N.W.2d 72 (Mich. 1978). · cites it 2× “In addition to the Uniform Trade Practices Act, see MCL 500.3220, 500.3244; MSA 24.13220, 24.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Kurylowicz, 242 N.W.2d 530 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “MCLA 500.3220; MSA 24.13220. Under these provisions, an insurance company could cancel an automobile liability policy only for one or more of some 13 different reasons.”
Se. Michigan Surgical Hosp., LLC v. Allstate Ins. Co., 892 N.W.2d 434 (Mich. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “520, an insurer is required to insure the owner of the policy and authorized persons driving the covered vehicle at a minimum dollar amount for liability arising from injury to other persons or property.”
OHIO FARMERS Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 445 N.W.2d 228 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 2× “(b) That the named insured or any other operator, either resident of the same household or who customarily operates an automobile insured under the policy has had his operator’s license suspended during the policy period and the revocation or suspension has become final.”
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. v. Allen, 212 N.W.2d 821 (Mich. Ct. App. 1973). “Dodds and Kendall contend that the trial judge erred in denying their motions asserting that under MCLA 500.3220; MSA 24.13220 State Farm could not cancel its insurance policy with Allen.”
Dorsey v. Michigan Mut. Liab. Co., 250 N.W.2d 143 (Mich. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “On May 8, 1973, and within the 55 day statutory period during which the insurer may cancel because it deems the risk unacceptable, MCLA 500.3220; MSA 24.13220, 1 Michigan Mutual sent a notice of cancellation by first class mail which was received by *609 appellee.”
Meemic Ins. Co. v. Louise M Fortson (Mich. 2020). · cites it 25× “Meemic’s contract-based fraud defense thus failed because it was not the type of common-law fraud defense that would allow for rescission, and the contract-based defense was, therefore, unenforceable.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3220(a) — 4 cases
Titan Ins. Co. v. Hyten, 491 Mich. 547 (Mich. 2012). “, limits the ability of an insurer to avoid liability on the ground of fraud in obtaining a motor vehicle liability policy with respect to insurance required by the financial responsibility act.”
Titan Ins. v. Hyten, 805 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “3220 prohibited an automobile liability insurer from cancelling coverage after a policy had remained in effect for 55 days, except for any one of 12 enumerated reasons.”
OHIO FARMERS Ins. Co. v. Michigan Mut. Ins. Co., 445 N.W.2d 228 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989). “(b) That the named insured or any other operator, either resident of the same household or who customarily operates an automobile insured under the policy has had his operator’s license suspended during the policy period and the revocation or suspension has become final.”
Meemic Ins. Co. v. Louise M Fortson (Mich. 2020). “Meemic’s contract-based fraud defense thus failed because it was not the type of common-law fraud defense that would allow for rescission, and the contract-based defense was, therefore, unenforceable.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 500.3220(b) — 2 cases
Titan Ins. v. Hyten, 805 N.W.2d 503 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “3220 prohibited an automobile liability insurer from cancelling coverage after a policy had remained in effect for 55 days, except for any one of 12 enumerated reasons.”
Meemic Ins. Co. v. Louise M Fortson (Mich. 2020). “Meemic’s contract-based fraud defense thus failed because it was not the type of common-law fraud defense that would allow for rescission, and the contract-based defense was, therefore, unenforceable.”
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.