UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

AWRAHA Y. DANIEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANIES, 

Defendant.

 /

Case No. 09-11282

Honorable Patrick J. Duggan

OPINION AND ORDER

 At a session of said Court, held in the U.S.

District Courthouse, Eastern District 

of Michigan, on October 22, 2009.

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Awraha Y. Daniel (“Daniel”) filed the present lawsuit in Wayne County Circuit

Court in February 2009 against Allstate Insurance Company (“Allstate”). Allstate

subsequently removed the case to this Court. Presently before the Court is Allstate’s

Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings and/or for Partial Summary Judgment. 

Daniel failed to reply to the motion and, pursuant to Eastern District of Michigan Local

Rule 7.1(e)(2), the Court dispensed with oral argument. For the reasons set forth below,

the Court grants Allstate’s motion.

I. Background

This lawsuit involves an insurance dispute over a claim by Daniel for losses related

2:09-cv-11282-PJD-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 10/22/09 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 108
1

This is the only and most recent case that appears after searching for Michigan state

cases with party names Smith and Globe.

2

to a fire and theft at his home in July 2008. After conducting an investigation, Allstate

denied Daniel’s claim on grounds that the fire resulted from an intentional act either by

Daniel or done at Daniel’s direction and that Daniel had violated the concealment and

fraud provisions of the relevant insurance policy. Daniel subsequently filed the present

lawsuit alleging that the denial amounted to a breach of contract and a violation of the

Michigan Consumer Protection Act (“MCPA”), Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.90 et seq. 

In the present motion, Allstate seeks dismissal of Daniel’s MCPA claim and various other

assertions made by Daniel in the course of discovery. 

II. Standard of Review

“The manner of review [on a motion for judgment on the pleadings] is the same as a

review [on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be

granted].” Vickers v. Fairfield Med. Ctr., 453 F.3d 757, 761 (6th Cir. 2006). To analyze

such motions, the Court must “construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff, accept all of the complaint’s factual allegations as true, and determine whether

the plaintiff undoubtedly can prove no set of facts in support of the claims that would

entitle relief.” Grindstaff v. Green, 133 F.3d 416, 421 (6th Cir. 1998).

III. Michigan Consumer Protection Act

Daniel purportedly brings his MCPA claim pursuant to “the recent Court of Appeals

Case, Smith -v- Globe.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) If by this Daniel means the 1999 Michigan

Supreme Court case Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 460 Mich. 446, 597 N.W.2d 28 (1999),1

2:09-cv-11282-PJD-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 10/22/09 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 109
3

that case has since been superceded in relevant part by an amendment to the MCPA. See

Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 445.904(3). Under the amended statute, “the MCPA no longer

applies to insurance companies.” McLiechey v. Bristol West Ins. Co., 408 F. Supp. 2d

516, 524 (W.D. Mich. 2006). Therefore, Allstate is entitled to judgment on the pleadings

as to this claim.

IV. Plaintiff’s Identification of Potential Damages

As part of discovery, Allstate submitted an interrogatory to Daniel stating, “Please

state, separately, each element of damage for which you are claiming compensation

and/or entitlement in this lawsuit, including but not limited to, damages for breach of

contract . . . .” (Def.’s Mot. Ex. A at 4.) Allstate contends that Daniel, in response to this

interrogatory, asserted three new claims for economic damages, non-economic

damages/attorney fees, and mental distress. In the present motion, Allstate seeks

dismissal of these three new “claims” on grounds that Daniel failed to plead them in his

complaint and that each fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Having reviewed Daniel’s response to the interrogatory in its entirety, the Court

concludes that Allstate is operating under a misinterpretation. The economic damages,

non-economic damages/attorney fees, and mental distress alluded to in Daniel’s response

refer to the types of damages Daniel seeks under the MCPA. Because the Court has

dismissed Daniel’s MCPA claim, the Court need not independently address Allstate’s

arguments regarding the types of damages sought thereunder.

V. Conclusion

Daniel’s MCPA claim fails as a legal matter because such claims cannot be brought

2:09-cv-11282-PJD-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 10/22/09 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 110
4

against an insurance company. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Allstate’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings is

GRANTED.

s/PATRICK J. DUGGAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Copies to:

Paul C. Woods, Esq.

Amy L. Wille, Esq.

2:09-cv-11282-PJD-RSW Doc # 17 Filed 10/22/09 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 111