Strait v. Ray North, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Dick Loehr's, Inc. v. Secretary of State

    180 Mich. App. 165 (Mich. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 7 times
    In Dick Loehr's, Inc. v. Secretary of State, 180 Mich.App. 165, 446 N.W.2d 624 (1989), the court held that a car salesman's fraudulent misrepresentation could be imputed to the car dealership on the basis of the salesman's apparent authority.

    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.

  2. Spears v. Colonial Bank of Alabama

    514 So. 2d 814 (Ala. 1987)   Cited 7 times
    In Spears v. Colonial Bank of Alabama, 514 So.2d 814 (Ala. 1987), this Court addressed a claim that another automobile dealer and a bank had violated § 5-19-20 in the manner in which they calculated the premiums for credit life insurance.

    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.

  3. Sanchez v. Gene Merollis, Inc.

    167 N.W.2d 596 (Mich. Ct. App. 1969)   Cited 1 times

    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.