Rescission; Pioneer State Mut Ins Co v Wright; Balancing the equities; Whether the policy should have been reformed as to the amounts of coverage; MCL 500.3009(1)(a); Progressive Marathon Ins Co v Espinoza-Solis; The court’s jurisdiction; MCR 7.203(A)(1)

The court held that the trial court “properly considered the specific facts of this case when it determined that rescission was not appropriate.” And it concluded that “the trial court did not err when it found that the liability limits were $250,000 per individual and $500,000 per accident.” Defendant-MemberSelect argued “that the trial court abused its discretion by declining to rescind the insurance policy.” The court held that “the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that rescission was not appropriate.” Although MemberSelect argued “that the trial court failed to consider all of the proper factors, and relied on other factors that were not relevant to the analysis, the equitable remedy of rescission is ‘adaptive to the circumstances of each case.’” The court noted that “the trial court did not find that equity balanced in favor of MemberSelect when the third parties, who had nothing to do with [its insured, defendant-Gates’s] misrepresentations, were seriously harmed.” Further, there was “nothing in the record to suggest that the third parties had any fault in the collision.” The court held that the “trial court properly balanced the equities, and its ‘analysis was specific to the facts and circumstances of the case and went no further than what was equitable.’” The court also rejected MemberSelect’s argument that “even if rescission is inappropriate, the trial court erred by declining to reform the policy to reflect coverage of $50,000 per person and $100,000 per occurrence.” The court held in Espinoza-Solis that the “‘statutorily required minimum residual liability insurance for policies issued after [7/1/20], is $250,000 per person and $500,000 per accident, pursuant to MCL 500.3009(1)(a) and (b), unless the proper steps are followed to exercise the options of selecting a lower coverage amount under MCL 500.3009(5).’” The court noted that “Gates never made an election to lower her minimum coverage, particularly considering her policy limit was $250,000/$500,000.” Affirmed.