Summary
allowing a plaintiff to seek recovery under the MCPA, pursuant to a complaint filed in December 2005, for "damages resulting from the methods, acts or practices violative of the MCPA based on conduct by defendant occurring from July 29, 1992 to March 28, 2001 [the effective date of MCL 445.904(3)]."
Summary of this case from Schwein v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.Opinion
Docket No. 142917. COA No. 293303.
2012-10-26
Barbara CONVERSE, Guardian and Conservator of Catherine Curtis, a legally incapacitated person, Plaintiff–Appellant, v. AUTO CLUB GROUP INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant–Appellee.
Prior report: Mich.App., 2011 WL 744940.
Order
By order of September 6, 2011, the application for leave to appeal the March 3, 2011 judgment of the Court of Appeals was held in abeyance pending the decision in Joseph v. ACIA (Docket No. 142615). On order of the Court, the case having been decided on May 15, 2012, 491 Mich. 200, 815 N.W.2d 412(2012), the application is again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(H)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REVERSE in part the judgment of the Court of Appeals. For the reasons stated in the Court of Appeals dissenting opinion, the Calhoun Circuit Court erred in dismissing plaintiff's Michigan Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claims. MCL 445.911(7) of the MCPA provides, in pertinent part: “An action under this section shall not be brought more than 6 years after the occurrence of the method, act, or practice which is the subject of the action nor more than 1 year after the last payment in a transaction involving the method, act, or practice which is the subject of the action, whichever period of time ends at a later date.” Because plaintiff brought this action within one year of the last payment, plaintiff's action was timely filed and thus plaintiff can seek to recover damages resulting from the methods, acts or practices violative of the MCPA based on conduct by defendant occurring from July 29, 1992 to March 28, 2001 [the effective date of MCL 445.904(3)]. In all other respects, leave to appeal is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the remaining questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.