Court Opinion

ID: 9835394
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 02:22:41.810724+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:03.171059
License: Public Domain

*670SAWYER, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s conclusion that this case is controlled by our decision in Bazzi v Sentinel Ins Co, 315 Mich App 763; 891 NW2d 13 (2016), and, therefore, we must reverse the trial court. Because Bazzi concluded that the innocent-third-party doctrine is no longer viable in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Titan Ins Co v Hyten, 491 Mich 547; 817 NW2d 562 (2012), the trial court erred by denying summary disposition to defendant. Once the trial court determined that the policy was obtained through fraud, defendant was entitled to summary disposition. The record firmly establishes that Kre-klau made material misrepresentations in the application, and those misrepresentations were material to the risk and hazard associated with the policy because they induced Allstate to charge drastically lowered premiums. Therefore, Allstate’s rescission was effective with regard to Letkemann. Moreover, since Letkemann is barred from recovering no-fault benefits under the rescinded policy, so is Southeast Michigan Surgical Hospital, LLC. See Bahri v IDS Prop Cas Ins Co, 308 Mich App 420, 424; 864 NW2d 609 (2014).
I also agree with the majority’s conclusion that neither of the alternative grounds advanced by plaintiffs to affirm the case has merit. But because I believe that Bazzi was correctly decided, I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that it was incorrectly decided, and I dissent from the majority’s call to convene a conflict panel pursuant to MCR 7.215(J)(2).
Accordingly, I would merely reverse the trial court’s grant of summary disposition to plaintiffs and remand this matter to the trial court for entry of an order granting Allstate’s motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(0(10).