May 13, 2026
/
Sabeen
Court of Appeals Affirms That an Insurer Cannot Void an Entire Policy Based on a Misrepresentation Unrelated to the Vehicle at Issue
By Pratheep Sevanthinathan, Esq.
The Seva Law Firm
Case: Citizens United Reciprocal Exchange v. Witt, No. 373487 (Mich. Ct. App. May 5, 2026) (Unpublished)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Panel: Trebilcock, P.J., and Patel and Wallace, JJ.
Decision: Affirmed Per Curiam
Lower Court: Wayne Circuit Court, Case No. 24-006833-CZ
1. Introduction
The Michigan Court of Appeals has once again rejected an insurance company’s attempt to void an entire auto insurance policy based on a misrepresentation that had nothing to do with the vehicle or the claim at issue. In *CURE v. Witt*, the Court affirmed the Wayne Circuit Court’s grant of summary disposition in favor of the insured, holding that CURE failed to present admissible evidence that the alleged misrepresentation was material to the collision coverage on the vehicle that was actually damaged in the accident. The decision reinforces the principle established in *Howard v. LM General Insurance Co.*, 345 Mich App 166 (2023), that an insurer seeking to rescind a policy must demonstrate that the misrepresentation was material to the specific coverage being disputed not just to the policy in general.
2. Facts
Celinda Witt applied for a no-fault insurance policy from CURE covering multiple vehicles, including a 2023 Kia Sportage and a 2020 Nissan Altima. She listed herself and two of her grandsons, Altonio Allen and Robert Allen, as insureds. On the application, Witt stated that the Nissan was owned by and registered to her. In reality, the Nissan was solely owned and registered to Robert. The Kia, on the other hand, was co-owned by Altonio and Witt no misrepresentation was made regarding that vehicle.
After Altonio was involved in a motor vehicle accident that caused significant damage to the Kia, CURE refused to pay the collision claim. Rather than disputing the facts of the accident or the damages, CURE’s position was far more aggressive: it argued that the entire policy should be voided from its inception because Witt misrepresented the ownership of the Nissan. In other words, CURE wanted to avoid paying for damage to the Kia a vehicle about which no misrepresentation was ever made because of a misstatement about a completely different car.
CURE filed a declaratory judgment action seeking to void the policy. In a separate action, Witt sued CURE for breach of contract for refusing to pay the Kia collision claim.
3. Issues
The central question before the Court was whether CURE could rescind the entire insurance policy including collision coverage on the Kia based solely on a misrepresentation about the ownership of the Nissan, when no misrepresentation was made regarding the Kia and the Nissan was not involved in the accident or the claim.
More specifically, the Court needed to determine whether CURE presented sufficient admissible evidence that the misrepresentation was *material* to the coverage on the Kia, as required under the Court of Appeals’ prior decision in *Howard v. LM General Insurance Co.*
4. Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court, holding that CURE failed to establish that the Nissan misrepresentation was material to the collision coverage on the Kia. The Court reached this conclusion for several important reasons.
First, the Court applied the rule from *Howard* that an insurer must demonstrate that the misrepresentation was material to the coverage on the specific vehicle at issue, not the policy as a whole. Because CURE’s complaint was about the ownership of the Nissan, and the claim involved damage to the Kia, CURE needed to show that the Nissan misrepresentation affected its decision to insure the Kia. CURE could not do so.
Second, CURE’s evidentiary support fell apart under scrutiny. CURE submitted two pieces of evidence: a rescission letter sent to Witt and an affidavit from its underwriting manager. The Court rejected the rescission letter as inadmissible hearsay it was an out-of-court statement generated by CURE after the collision specifically to avoid liability. As for the affidavit, which stated that CURE’s underwriting guidelines would have made Witt ineligible for the policy, the Court found that it was directly contradicted by CURE’s own binding admission in discovery. CURE had previously admitted, under oath pursuant to MCR 2.312, that it does in fact issue policies to insureds who do not own the vehicles covered. The Court held that a party cannot create a genuine issue of material fact by filing an affidavit that contradicts its own prior sworn admission.
Third, the Court distinguished the recent Michigan Supreme Court decision in *Sherman v. Progressive Michigan Insurance Co.* (2026), where rescission was permitted because the insurer presented an unrebutted affidavit establishing materiality. In CURE v. Witt, by contrast, CURE’s affidavit was rebutted by its own discovery admission, and CURE failed to submit any actual underwriting documents supporting its claim.
5. Conclusion
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision granting summary disposition in favor of the defendants and denying CURE’s counter-motion for summary disposition. The policy was not voided, and the collision coverage on the Kia remains intact. Because the Court resolved the case on the materiality issue, it did not reach the defendants’ additional arguments regarding CURE’s failure to comply with the 30-day cancellation notice provision in the policy or the innocent-third-party defense raised by Altonio and Robert Allen.
6. What Does This Mean for Our Clients?
This decision is significant for anyone who has had an insurance company try to deny a claim by pointing to a problem with a different vehicle on the same policy. Here is what you should know:
If your insurer is trying to void your policy, they cannot rely on a misrepresentation about a vehicle that is unrelated to your claim. Under Howard and now CURE v. Witt, the insurer must prove that the alleged misrepresentation was material to the specific coverage being disputed. If you made an error on your application about one car, that does not automatically give the insurance company the right to deny a claim on a different car.
Insurance companies must back up their rescission arguments with real evidence. CURE tried to use a self-serving letter and an affidavit to prove it would not have issued the policy. The Court rejected both. This is a reminder that insurers cannot simply have an employee sign a form letter after the fact and expect the court to accept it. They need to produce actual underwriting documents and guidelines, and those documents must be consistent with their other representations in the case.
Discovery admissions matter. CURE admitted in discovery that it does issue policies to people who do not own the covered vehicle. When its affidavit later claimed the opposite, the Court refused to let CURE contradict its own sworn admission. This underscores how important the discovery process is in insurance litigation.
This case applies beyond collision coverage. While this case involved collision coverage, the Howard framework applies equally to other optional coverages like underinsured motorist (UIM) benefits. Any time an insurer tries to void optional coverage based on a misrepresentation about a different vehicle or a different aspect of the policy, this line of cases provides a strong defense.
If your insurance company has denied your claim or attempted to void your policy, contact The Seva Law Firm. We handle these cases every day, and decisions like CURE v. Witt are exactly the kind of authority we use to fight for our clients.
Pratheep Sevanthinathan is the owner and managing attorney of The Seva Law Firm, located at 100 W. Big Beaver Rd, Suite 500, Troy, MI 48084. He can be reached at (248) 385-5704.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is different, and past results do not guarantee future outcomes.