Innocent Until Proven Guilty: Michigan Court of Appeals Applies Factors to Determine Whether Policy Rescission Affects an Innocent Third Party’s Ability to Collect No-Fault Benefits

On appeal, LM asserted that Plaintiff Howard’s Mariner was registered to a different address than the address on the policy but presented no evidence to support this allegation. This did not change the Court of Appeals’ analysis, as the only admissible evidence LM offered was the misrepresentation related to Bartell’s Yukon as its basis for rescission. Further, the Court noted that insurers may not rescind PIP coverage on the basis of post-procurement misrepresentations.

To access the full article, click here: https://bit.ly/3PfjYqF