Claims for personal injury protection (PIP) benefits under a negligence/agent errors & omissions theory; Zaremba Equip, Inc v Harco Nat’l Ins Co; Special relationship; Harts v Farmers Ins Exch; MCL 500.2005(a); Haji v Prevention Ins Agency, Inc; Misrepresentation & innocent misrepresentation; Kassab v Michigan Basic Prop Ins Ass’n; M&D, Inc v McConkey; The No-Fault Act (NFA)

The court held that plaintiff’s claim for PIP benefits due to negligence based on an agent’s errors and omissions failed as a matter of law because “there was no special relationship between plaintiff and defendant’s agent giving rise to a duty to advise plaintiff” about the adequacy of her coverage. And her misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation claims failed for the same reasons. Thus, the court affirmed summary disposition for defendant. After an auto accident, plaintiff claimed PIP benefits from defendant under her policy, but defendant denied them based on “her failure to maintain insurance in accordance with the” NFA. She sued “for ‘negligence/errors and omissions,’ and for ‘misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation,’ with regard to defendant’s agent’s alleged failure to properly advise [her] about ‘the nature and extent of the coverage’ that defendant offered and provided.” She asserted that three of the special circumstances identified in Harts were created during a “phone conversation between herself and defendant’s agent, giving rise to a special relationship engendering defendant’s agent’s duty to plaintiff to advise her” on the adequacy of her coverage. But the court concluded the undisputed record evidence showed “that no special relationship was established creating a duty for defendant’s agent to advise plaintiff on the adequacy of her” policy. The “agent did not misrepresent the nature or extent of the coverage, plaintiff did not make any ambiguous request or statement calling for clarification, defendant’s agent did not offer [her] unsolicited advice, and the advice given was not inaccurate. . . . There was no evidence that defendant’s agent provided plaintiff with any false or otherwise misleading statements” about her policy. The court noted there was no indication she “notified the agent that her car was registered in Michigan, only that she had an existing California insurance policy with a California residential address.” Further, the record did not indicate that she “asked for, or ordered, an insurance policy that defendant’s agent failed to deliver; she asked only if she could ‘drive safely’ in Michigan under her policy. [The] agent answered that her existing policy was sufficient to cover her during her stay in Michigan, and, under the circumstances known to the agent, this was not false or otherwise misleading information.”