Opinion ID: 1693300
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: MCPA subsection (4)(2)

Text: This section provides: Except for the purposes of an action filed by a person under section 11, this act shall not apply to an unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive method, act, or practice that is made unlawful by [various specified public acts.] In this case, plaintiff, daughter of the deceased insured, is a person as defined by M.C.L.  445.902(c); MSA 19.418(2)(c), which includes a natural person. Furthermore, plaintiff filed under subsection 11(2) which provides: Except in a class action, a person who suffers loss as a result of a violation of this act may bring an action to recover actual damages or $250.00, whichever is greater, together with reasonable attorneys' fees. The court in Robertson v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 890 F.Supp. 671, 674-675 (E.D.Mich., 1995), correctly explained the organization of the different sections of the MCPA: Thus, section 11 is the section regarding private causes of action brought by consumers. The only other sections addressing who may bring actions under the act (and under what circumstances) are sections 10 and 15. Section 10 applies to class actions brought by the attorney general on behalf of citizens of the state, and  15 extends to county prosecutors the power of the attorney general to bring suit. [Citations omitted.] Section 11 allows private actions to be brought and  4(2) excepts actions brought under  11 from exemption from the Michigan Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, plaintiffs' action is not exempted from the act's purview. The act allows private party suits where state-initiated prosecution would be precluded under [MCL 445.904(2)(a)-(g); MSA 19.418(4)(2)(a)-(g).] Plaintiff's complaint alleged violations of the MCPA. Specifically, she alleged violations of M.C.L.  445.903(a)-(e); MSA 19.418(3)(a)-(e), and requested actual damages and attorney fees pursuant to  11. Therefore, plaintiff's suit is not barred by the exemption provided in subsection 4(2). I disagree with the conclusion that we should ignore subsection 4(1)(a) when a private suit is filed against an insurer, yet utilize it to bar most consumer claims that do not fall under the exception listed in subsections 4(2)(a)-(e). However, I agree that defendant was not entitled to summary disposition on its MCPA claim. I would hold that because defendant has failed to provide evidence that its conduct, using inconsistent insurance eligibility forms in a single transaction, is specifically authorized, it is not exempt from suit under subsection 4(1)(a) of the MCPA. I would also hold that because plaintiff is a person filing under  11, defendant is not exempt under subsection 4(2).