Court Opinion

ID: 9519385
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:15:36.819327+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:19.810643
License: Public Domain

Shepherd, P.J.
(concurring). I concur in the *268result but write separately for two reasons. First, I do not agree that THM, Ltd v Comm’r of Ins, 176 Mich App 772; 440 NW2d 85 (1989), was wrongly decided. The decision in that case was based upon the business plan that had been submitted to the Commissioner of Insurance. I concurred in that opinion because I believed that competent, material, and substantial evidence supported the commissioner’s conclusion that the business plan would violate MCL 500.2077(2); MSA 24.12077(2), which precludes a mortgage lender from using information relating to a customer’s insurance needs to its advantage or to the detriment of the borrower. I am satisfied that the business plan submitted by plaintiff in this case sufficiently addresses the concerns raised in THM.
Secondly, I do not agree with the statement in the majority opinion that the subjective beliefs, reasonable or unreasonable, of the customers have no bearing on whether the customer was subjected to intimidating, threatening, or coercive action. Certainly an unreasonable belief of the customer cannot form the basis of a claim that the insurance agency engaged in coercive activity. However, a reasonable subjective belief by the customer of intimidation, if such reasonable belief is based upon specific acts of the insurance agency or the financial institution, should in my view be considered in determining whether coercion actually occurred. Such unlawful acts would include violations of the business plan.