Court Opinion

ID: 9673084
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:06:02.131014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:20.133494
License: Public Domain

O’Connell, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree with the majority opinion that when a complaint alleges all the necessary elements of fraud as well as malpractice, the statute of limitations governing fraud actions will apply to the fraud count. Brownell v Garber, 199 Mich App 519, 533; 503 NW2d 81 (1993). However, I disagree with the majority’s remedy of reformation of the insurance contract. The antidiscrimination statute, MCL 500.2019; MSA 24.12019, bars reformation of insurance contracts. See Broughton v Dona, 63 AD2d 1101; 406 NYS2d 581 (1978); Key Systems Transit Lines v Pacific Employers Ins Co, 52 Cal 2d 800; 345 P2d 257 (1959); American Life Ins Co of Alabama v Aladdin Temple Benevolent Ass’n, 238 Ala 512; 191 So 903 (1939). If plaintiffs are successful in their fraud claim, they can be adequately compensated in damages.
The majority cites one California case, Homestead Supplies, Inc v Executive Life Ins Co, 81 Cal App 3d 978; 147 Cal Rptr 22 (1978), for the proposition that plaintiffs’ claim is not barred by the Michigan antidiscrimination statute. However, the majority misinterprets Homestead. In Homestead, the insured demanded that the court enforce the insurance policy as written. The court held that the insurer could not use the antidiscrimination clause as a shield to protect itself from its own wrongdoing. I agree this is an appropriate and equitable result. However, it does not apply to the present case.
*13In Homestead, the insured did not request reformation of an existing contract, and the courts did not allow reformation of the contract.
The majority opinion cites no statute or case law that permits a Michigan trial judge to reform insurance contracts in violation of the antidiscrimination statutes.1 I would establish the bright-line rule that the antidiscrimination statutes prohibit reformation of insurance contracts. I would also remand and allow plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

 It would make the Insurance Commissioner’s job more interesting if 617 Michigan trial judges were granted the authority to reform insurance contracts in Michigan.