Material misrepresentation; Ambiguities in the policy; Motion for reconsideration

The court concluded that as it was undisputed “Progressive relied upon the misrepresentation, rescission is warranted under the language of the contract.” Also, given plaintiff-Musleh had “not identified any ambiguities in the policy, his claim that the trial court erred by interpreting the policy” was without merit. Finally, the trial court did not err by failing to rule on his motion for reconsideration. He argued there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether he misrepresented information on his application for insurance. He did not dispute “he made a material misrepresentation on his insurance application when he stated that each of his vehicles was garaged in Washington Township.” Instead, he stressed “he did not intentionally make a material misrepresentation.” He posited that he “would have readily complied with the garaging requirements if Progressive had described its ‘garage-related’ concerns in the insurance application, had asked more detailed questions in the application, or had defined its garage-related concerns in the" policy. The court noted that the “plain terms of the contract, however, do not require a finding of fraud or intentional misstatement. Instead, the rescission clause applies to both intentional and inadvertent material misrepresentations in the insurance application.” Thus, it was “irrelevant whether he would have accurately conveyed the information if he had been better informed by Progressive as to what it meant when it asked for his ‘garaging zip code’ and ‘rating city.’ Indeed, ‘[r]escission is justified without regard to the intentional nature of the misrepresentation, as long as it is relied upon by the insurer.”’ Musleh also suggested the policy “was ambiguous so it should be construed against Progressive.” But he did “not identify which provisions were ambiguous.” He suggested—“vaguely—that the policy is ambiguous because it does not define what he terms ‘garaging-related’ terminology. The failure to define a term, however, does not render a policy ambiguous.” In this case, it was “axiomatic that a request for information on where the vehicle is garaged refers to where the vehicle is physically stored when not in use. Indeed, the policy refers to ‘principle garaging address’ separately from the insured’s ‘mailing address’ and ‘residence address,’ which suggests that the vehicle does not have to be stored at the insured’s residence. Moreover, Musleh was not actually confused by the language used given that he sent a notarized letter indicating where each vehicle was actually garaged.” Musleh also suggested “the trial court never intended to hear his motion for reconsideration. The trial court, however, may not set aside or amend its order granting summary disposition because Musleh’s claim of appeal was treated as an application for leave to appeal and was granted.” Affirmed.