 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Boyle v. General Motors Corp.3/22/2002
ve known of the misrepresentation. [Fagerberg, supra, 164 Mich App 353-354.]
Unfortunately, the Fagerberg panel did not discuss the apparent conflict between its application of the discovery doctrine and the previous Supreme Court decisions in Thatcher and Ramsey.
While it is true that our Supreme Court declined to apply the discovery rule in Thatcher and Ramsey, it is also true that Thatcher predated the adoption of the discovery rule in Michigan. See Johnson, supra at 378-379. Moreover, in a case involving negligent misrepresentation by an abstract company, our Supreme Court in Williams v Polgar, 391 Mich 6, 25 n 18; 215 NW2d 149 (1974), quoted with approval a case involving fraud, Hillock v Idaho Title & Trust Co, 22 Idaho 440, 449; 126 P 612, 615 (1912):
If the statute runs in favor of the abstractor from the delivery of the abstract, the company would be released long before the falsity of the abstract could reasonably be discovered by the purchaser. This would not be justice, and ought not to be the law.
The Supreme Court's approval of Hillock supports the argument that there is no bar to the use of the discovery rule in fraud actions. Further, the Fagerberg panel was aware of and quoted the Supreme Court's decision in Williams in concluding that the discovery rule applies. Thus, we conclude that Fagerberg is good law and, therefore, we reverse the decision of the trial court.
Reversed and remanded. Jurisdiction is not retained.
E. Thomas Fitzgerald
Janet T. Neff
Michael J. Talbot
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|