MCL ยง 445.911(7). Defendant argues that a private cause of action no longer exists on these facts under the MCPA, but the case of Grant v. AAA Michigan, Wisconsin, Inc., 707 N.W.2d 592 (Mich. 2005) (" Grant II") (vacating Grant v. AAA Michigan, Wisconsin, Inc., 703 N.W.2d 196 (Mich.Ct.App. 2005) (" Grant I")) indicates that such a cause of action still exists for those claims that arose prior to the March 28, 2001 amendment of the MCPA. Resolution of the issue demands a detailed examination of the related cases and the MCPA amendment, and suggests that the MCPA amendment did not apply retroactively. The first case in this line was Smith v. Globe Life Ins. Co., 597 N.W.2d 28 (Mich.
Id. at 611. On application for leave to appeal, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated the decision and remanded for reconsideration in light of the Smith court's recognition of a private cause of action under the pre-amended MCPA. Grant v. AAA Michigan, Wisconsin, Inc., 474 Mich. 988, 707 N.W.2d 592 (2005) (citing Smith, 460 Mich. at 467). On August 24, 2006, the Michigan Court of Appeals reasoned on remand that it need not decide whether the MCPA claims survived the 2000 amendment of the MCPA because the claims, even if actionable under Smith, would remain barred by the "one-year back" rule of the No-Fault Act.Grant v. AAA Michigan, Wisconsin, Inc. (On Remand), 272 Mich. App. 142, ___ N.W.2d ___ (2005).