In Titan Ins Co. v. Hyten et al. Michigan Supreme Court to Consider Insurer’s Right to Reform Policy Based on Applicant’s Misrepresentations

The Court granted leave in this case to address whether an insurance carrier may reform an insurance policy on the ground of misrepresentation in the application for insurance where the misrepresentation is “easily ascertainable” and the claimant in an injured third party.  The order is attached here:  Titan Ins Co v Hyten et al. Order.

This case will address important issues concerning the expectation of contracting parties, the common law of reformation of contracts and the rules applicable thereto, and the extent to which prejudice arises to a third party who had nothing to do with the contract which was impaired by the misrepresentation made by the applicant.  It will also address the ability of a court to refuse the equitable remedy of reformation based on the urging party’s ability to know the facts underlying the misrepresentation.

The Court of Appeals ruled that since the insurance company could have ascertained the misrepresentation in the contract (that the insured had no valid license even though she represented that she did) the trial court was correct in refusing to reform the insurance contract to extend only the minimum benefits allowed to the injured third parties.  Read the Court of Appeals opinion here:  Titan Ins Co v Hyten (COA Opinion).

About cjtucker06

Owner of law firm since July 2014; Handles all types of appellate matters and assists other lawyers with complex litigation and insurance coverage issues; Admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the State Bar of Michigan; Expertise in prosecuting and defending appeals with several significant successes in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court and the Michigan Court of Appeals; Author of briefs amicus curiae in the Michigan Supreme Court for the Michigan Defense Trial Counsel and the Insurance Institute of Michigan; Represents Insurance Companies, Major International Business, Governmental Entities, Law Enforcement Officers and County Sheriffs. Board of Directors, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel Amicus Committee Co-Chair, Michigan Defense Trial Counsel Military - Retired Major in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) Corps of the United States Army, Brigade Judge Advocate and Staff JAG officer for the Maneuver Training Center, Camp Grayling, Michigan; Recipient of the Army's Meritorious Service Medal (the highest medal of honor available to Soldiers serving in non-combat roles); 2012 Graduate of the Judge Advocate Officer Advanced Course, at The Judge Advocate Legal Center and School, Charlottesville, Virginia. United States Navy Reserves, Combat Warfare Qualification, January 1989 to July 2003 Former law clerk to Justice Stephen J. Markman, Michigan Supreme Court, Research Attorney, Michigan Court of Appeals. Insurance Coverage Associate Plunkett Cooney; Environmental Law Attorney at Squire Sanders, now Squire Patton Boggs; Master's Degree in Environmental Law; Environmental Law Scholar, ALI/ABA Washington, D.C., Juris Doctorate, Vermont Law School, Environmental Editor, Vermont Law Review; Treasurer and Finalist, Moot Court Advisory Board.
Gallery | This entry was posted in May It Please the Court, Michigan Supreme Court Orders. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s