On appeal, the dealer states that his employee was agent of two principals — defendant and the insurance company. They [sic] cite Strait v Ray North, Inc, (1955), 343 Mich. 130 [ 72 N.W.2d 39], in support of the dual principal argument. We do not so read the case since it dealt with an action for specific performance of a contract of insurance rather than misrepresentation.
Where such is held, however, the rule usually protects the debtor/consumer in actions between the insured and the insurer. See Strait v. Ray North, Inc., 343 Mich. 130, 72 N.W.2d 39 (1955); Pacific Finance Corp. v. Moody, 272 S.W.2d 403 (Tex.Civ.App. 1954). Three observations are pertinent here: 1) The above referenced authorities are of pre-Mini-Code origins in which the courts, for insurer liability purposes, were unwilling to recognize the creditor as a shield between the insured and the insurer; 2) the broker status of retailers who sell insurance is now statutorily mandated in contests between the insurer and the insured (see § 27-8-5(c)); and 3) it is not the status of Colonial Bank (which is the ultimate creditor, but which is neither agent nor broker), but the status of Jim Burke, as broker or agent, that is the subject of our inquiry.
On appeal, the dealer states that his employee was agent of two principals — defendant and the insurance company. They cite Strait v. Ray North, Inc. (1955), 343 Mich. 130, in support of the dual principal argument. We do not so read the case since it dealt with an action for specific performance of a contract of insurance rather than misrepresentation.