Michigan High Court Sides With Progressive in Policy Misrepresentation Case

Progressive properly rescinded coverage to a Michigan driver who made misrepresentations on their insurance application, the state Supreme Court ruled.

Plaintiff Janice Sherman sought personal protection insurance (PIP) benefits through Progressive after being involved in a July 2021 car accident. Progressive discovered that Sherman improperly disclosed where she garaged her vehicles and who she lived with at the time of the accident.

Had Sherman accurately disclosed those facts, her insurance premium would have increased by 83%.

Progressive denied coverage on account of the misrepresentations, stating that it had rescinded Sherman’s policy and refunded premiums she had paid of approximately $1,500.

Sherman filed a complaint alleging Progressive had unlawfully refused to pay PIP benefits and breached the insurance contract. Sherman argued that Progressive should agree to a remedy tailored to the equities of the situation by reforming rather than rescinding the policy.

A trial court sided Sherman, ordering that the policy be reformed to reflect the insurance premium Progressive believed it would have been entitled to had Sherman accurately submitted the insurance application.

Under the trial court’s order, Sherman was required to repay the refunded $1,500 premium plus a 75% policy premium increase of $1,126.

Progressive brought the case to the Court of Appeals, who entered an opinion vacating the trial court’s ruling. The Court of Appeals concluded that because the case involved misconduct by Sherman, but not Progressive, Sherman should bear the financial risk of her misrepresentations. Progressive, the court ruled, was within its rights to rescind the policy and deny coverage.

Sherman appealed the case to the Michigan Supreme Court, who affirmed the Court of Appeals’ opinion.

The court noted that Michigan’s no-fault act generally requires insurers to provide PIP benefits to their insureds regardless of who is at fault in an accident. Progressive, however, had a reasonable right to expect honesty in the insurance application, the court opined.

Had Progressive received accurate information from Sherman, it would have issued her a different contract, ruled the court.

The justices stated the trial court erred in denying Progressive rescission of the contract, arguing that the trial court should have examined Progressive’s conduct related to the procurement of the policy.

“The record contains no allegation of wrongdoing or inequitable conduct on Progressive’s part,” Justice Brian K. Zahra wrote. “Clearly then, Progressive is entitled to rescission, given that Progressive made no mistake, committed no fraud, and materially relied on Sherman’s misrepresentations when issuing her an insurance policy.”

The court noted that rescission is not an automatic response where fraud is alleged. Given the one-sided nature of the case, however, there was no plausible basis for the trial court to find a result favoring the plaintiff, the court ruled.