Harts v. Farmers Ins Exchange

In Harts v. Farmers Ins Exchange, 461 Mich 1; 597 NW2d 47 (1999), the Supreme Court stated, in relevant part, as follows: While we agree with Bruner that there must be "some type of interaction on a question of coverage," id. at 34, we do not subscribe to the possible reading of Bruner that holds reliance on the length of the relationship between the agent and the insured is the dispositive factor in transforming the relationship into one in which the traditional common-law "no duty" principle is abrogated. We thus modify the "special relationship" test discussed in Bruner and the other cases cited above so that the general rule of no duty changes when: (1) the agent misrepresents the nature or extent of the coverage offered or provided; (2) an ambiguous request is made that requires a clarification; (3) an inquiry is made that may require advice and the agent, though he need not, gives advice that is inaccurate, or; (4) the agent assumes an additional duty by either express agreement with or promise to the insured. Id. at 10-11.