Michael F. Schmidt Obtains Summary Disposition On Appeal In The Michigan Court Of Appeals Based Upon A Misrepresentation In An Application For An Insurance Policy

Angela Jones v Meemic Insurance Company, Michigan Court of Appeals, 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a motion for summary disposition on the basis that the plaintiff’s claim was barred because the policy of insurance was rescinded because of misrepresentations made in the application that the plaintiff was a resident of the home at the time of the application when she had rented the home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 that 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 had argued that this was irrelevant because the plaintiff made a misrepresentation at the time of the application and if the plaintiff had not made the misrepresentation the policy never would have been issued and therefore there would have been no policy to renew. We filed an application for leave to appeal to the Michigan Court of Appeals along with a motion for immediate consideration. After briefing by the parties, the Court of Appeals issued its order granting our motion for immediate consideration and ordered that the trial court’s order denying our motion for summary disposition was reversed and ordered that summary disposition be entered in favor of Meemic on the basis that our argument was correct that although the representation was no longer false at the time of the renewal and as of the date of loss, this was “of no moment” since plaintiff’s eligibility for the renewal hinged on the representations made in the initial application per 21st Century Premier Ins. Co. v Zufelt, 315 Mich App 437 (2016).