Court Opinion

ID: 9592025
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:09:41.270698+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:13.899839
License: Public Domain

Danhof, P. J.
(dissenting). I must dissent because I believe the trial court erred in refusing to allow proof on the issue of fraud.
The land contract1 between the Vormelkers and the Oleksinskis provided that the Vormelkers would "keep the building now or hereafter on the premises insured against loss and damage in a manner and to an amount approved by the seller and to deliver the policies as issued to the seller with the premiums fully paid”. As I view the case the Vormelkers became the agents of the Oleksinskis for the purpose of procuring insurance.
I think it clear that if a principal misrepresents to his agent-and the agent, while acting as an agent, passes this misrepresentation along, the principal may be guilty of fraud. Thus, if the Vormelkers, even though acting innocently, misrepresented a material fact that had been misrepresented to them by the Oleksinskis, the Oleksinskis could be held to have committed a fraud.
I would reverse and remand for a new trial.

 See Vormelker v Oleksinski, 32 Mich App 498 (1971) for detailed discussion of judgment of recision of the contract.