Michael F. Schmidt Obtains Order From Supreme Court Denying Plaintiff’s Application For Leave To Appeal

Angela Jones v Meemic Insurance Company, Michigan Supreme Court, the plaintiff brought suit against Meemic seeking recovery for property damage from a house fire. We filed a motion for summary disposition on the basis that the claim was barred because the policy of insurance was rescinded because of material misrepresentations made in the application that the plaintiff was a resident of the home at the time of the application when she had rented the home out to a third party. The trial court denied our motion on the basis the policy had renewed before the fire and at the time of the renewal the plaintiff had moved back into the home and therefore there was no longer a misrepresentation. We appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals by application for leave to appeal on the basis that although the misrepresentation was no longer false at the time of the renewal and at the time of the loss, this was “of no moment” since plaintiff’s eligibility for the renewal hinged on representations made in the initial application per Century Premier Ins Co v Zufelt, 315 Mich App 437 (2016). The plaintiff then filed an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court which the Supreme Court has denied on the basis that the court was not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by the Court.